So what's the outcome regarding sight-testing by opticians in Ontario? I believe the government has recommended that this be the way of the future.
So what's the outcome regarding sight-testing by opticians in Ontario? I believe the government has recommended that this be the way of the future.
Not sure who you heard that from, but the HPRAC report came down hard on opticians for contining to refract, and restated their previous decision for opticians to cease and desist stand alone refractions.
March 31, 2010
The Honourable Deb Matthews
Minister of Health and Long-Term Care
10th Floor Hepburn Block
80 Grosvenor Street
Toronto ON M7A 2C4
Dear Minister,
We are pleased to present our report to you on the vital issue of collaboration among the eye care professions in Ontario. Our recommendations recognize that we are confronting many issues that have led to conflict among opticians, optometrists and ophthalmologists for many years. It is our hope that the professions can now transcend these matters for the sake of the greater public interest.
To us, the real issue is how our eye care professionals will together address an escalating crisis in the rapid growth of eye diseases and conditions. They must work in tandem to provide the safe, competent and coordinated care that patients expect.
In the course of our review on this matter, we sadly lost to cancer our friend and Vice Chair, Peter Sadlier-Brown, who always added pivotal and wise comment to our work. Peter was determined that we should be accurate, fair and balanced when we presented our advice and that we should not shy away from making recommendations that, on the basis of our research or internal conclusions, might significantly change the way health professions regulation works in Ontario. He, like other HPRAC members, insisted that our recommendations must be based on sound public policy, on evolutionary change and on the unshakable premise that the patient is central to the work of health professionals and how they are regulated.
In this report, we recommend changes to regulations under certain statutes. We also suggest action that might be taken by the health colleges. Beyond that, we believe that there is an opportunity for you, as Minister, to take a major supportive role in initiatives that go beyond legislative or regulatory change, and to emphasize the pressing need to change the way we manage eye care in Ontario. We are convinced that this will lead to people receiving the highest quality care, no matter where they live in the province.
We look forward to discussing this report with you. The matters are complex and have been influenced by several decades of discord. However, we are enthused by recent inventive proposals that will defuse internal tension and refocus debate on the best ways that our professionals can respond to, and support, the public interest.
Yours truly,
See all of it: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/publi...yes_report.pdf
I hadn't mentioned stand alone refractions. What I was asking about was your governments acceptance of refraction performed by opticians as a viable means to assist ophthalmologists and optometrist in the delivery of eye care.Originally Posted by NorthStar
5. That the Minister issue a new direction to the College of Opticians of Ontario pursuant to section 5 of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 requiring it to develop a standard of practice limiting the authority of members who perform refractions to those circumstances where such refracting is undertaken in collaboration with an optometrist or a physician for the purpose of informing a comprehensive ocular assessment. This standard of practice should be developed in collaboration with the College of Opticians of Ontario, the College of Optometrists of Ontario and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, and should be completed and approved so it will come into effect immediately upon changes to the optometry regulation concerning conflict of interest.
6. That the Minister direct the College of Opticians of Ontario to confirm that members with refraction designations are performing refractions only as part of a comprehensive eye examination in collaboration with an optometrist or physician.
7. That the College of Opticians of Ontario amend its by-laws to place in the register a record of those members who have been granted refraction designations and to require this information to be made public.
You can find the quote on page 113 of the HPRAC report referenced above. Of course there are checks-and-balances, but that's like anything else. The fact opticians have to work collaboratively with the other professions is a given. For any progressive practitioner this is a positive sign that our professions have to work together for the betterment of our patients.
Delegated refraction by opticians directly employed by an eye doctor has been optometry's position since the start. Eyelogic stocks won't be going up on this news. Typically anybody mentioning opticians' scope of practice and refractions it is assumed you are talking about stand-alone refraction. If you employ an optician perhaps you anticipate delegating refraction. The way I read it remote delegation is still not allowed.
The optoemtry college rules preventing optometrists from hiring opticians has contributed significantly to the animosity between the two professions, even though, as pointed out by HPRAC, many OD's currently break this rule, and have been doing so for some time. In the past some OD's have reportedly persuaded their optician to drop their license to comply with the regulations, but I would hope they guaranteed job security in these cases.
The Ontario College still thinks it is 1975,as far as its regulations.
Unfortunately, some on the college have been fighting change and if it were not for the government there likely would not be any change despite the college's claim that they wanted to change, but couldn't because of the legislative process (?).
More rules gives more power to those in charge to select who and what regulations they enforce - it has been an old boys club. However, the government has imposed a 9 yr maximum rule on college council membership for all regulated health professions forcing new blood and updated ideology into the college.
Is it not a democracy? I thought your members were voted in every 3 years. i dont think that the governmet has imposed a 9 year max, I think it has been in place since the onset of the RHPA.
Yes council member are elected for 3-year terms, but now a council member can only serve a maximum of 9 yrs on council. This legislation came into effect in the last few years.
Last edited by NorthStar; 09-02-2010 at 07:04 AM.
Northstar: When did the 9 years go into effect?
I looked into your 9 year term...it's been part of Ontario's health legislation since the 90's. You may want to familiarize yourself a bit better with the regulations that govern you.
Cheers
Thanks for pointing out the when the 9yr maximum came into effect.
Yes, the RHPA came into effect in 1991 which included the 9 yr (continuous) stipulation was there from the start. However, a strict reading of that law still allowed a councillor to take a very short hiatus after resigning shortly before the last term was up. Some councillors on the COO seemed to have taken advantage of that loophole. However, recent bylaws require one to step down for at least 3 years before re-running for another 9yrs. That is why "stepping down" has appeared to be more obvious in the last couple of years since that newer bylaw came into effect.
The real 9 yr maximum should be on the registrar - we have had essentially only 2 registrars since 1955. This, along with a council which has been composed of a rotation of the same OD's who all graduated in the early 80's and established themselves in an era before DPA's, significantly less competition, and when OHIP's $39 for an eye exam was pretty good - has been a significant factor in the lack of progressive change in optometric regulations.
Look at the cover of our last bulletin. With all the significant events going on in eyecare, the college focussed on their decision that any OD providing an eye exam to their spouse could jeopardize their license (???). Certainly a distraction from the real issues.
Just had a look at your last bulletin....What a joke...Makes me glad that I moved away from Onterrible....lol
I agree. An observation: It looks great in the rearview mirror!
Yes believe it or not the cover title is:
Do you treat your spouse? If you do you should stop.
http://www.collegeoptom.on.ca/conten...&sys-Attr=File
They took the case of a chiropractor who married a patient then obviously had a messy divorce. His license was suspended for 5yrs. So our college uses huge brushstrokes applying this to all OD's, not just the minority who have married a person they first met as a patient, and even smaller number who may go through such a nasty divorce with such a vindictive ex who they met as a patient.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks