When you are discussing progressives with patients how do you explain things like free form, digital? I need some easy to understand phrases that won't be confusing.
When you are discussing progressives with patients how do you explain things like free form, digital? I need some easy to understand phrases that won't be confusing.
"When we make a varifocal, we are essentially squashing lots of prescriptions together, so you can see at lots of different distances. But that process makes some areas of the lens inaccurate to the prescription needed for a given task. A better lens design allows us to make more of the lens accurate to your prescription. This has several consequences for the quality of your vision..."
Not saying it's perfect, but I find it helps if they understand 'why' the lens they choose affects their vision rather than just telling them that it does. Also, they must, must, must understand that there aren't just three types of progressives, it's just our way of simplifying things, otherwise it becomes very easy for other companies to mislead them.
Easy, I don't discuss I prescribe. Something like this, "Your lens costs X but after your insurance you'll pay X"
I stopped with the options and add-ons 4 years ago. Why are you asking the patient to decide what lens is best for them?
- Optician
- Frame Maker/Designer
- Teacher of the art of crafting handmade eyewear.
Happy Lady, there is no one single speech, it will depend on the patient. To men, I explain that Free-form is like their HD TV compared to analog. To some women (I don't know why, but women are far more concerned about night driving than men), I explain that the wider fields of view and better symmetry will give them more confidence driving at night by improving depth perception.
I really break it down to how each lens can have an impact on what they like to do. Do they need more intermediate? I have a lens that has more intemediate. Do they read more? I have a lens with wider reading zone. The solution is tied in with their need.
We have the Varilux S 4D (we do mainly Essilor) but we charge over $500 for just the basic lens. I certainly am not just going to put someone in it without any discussion. That would not go over well. But I need to be able to explain why it's better in an easy to understand way.Originally Posted by kcount
I don't push it and sell cheaper lenses most of the time but I know the doctor would like if I sold it more.
freeform: the lens manufactured to suite and accommodate to your wearing habit as well as providing the best visual comfort and field of view.
conventional PAL: the lens manufactured with their most optimum way but it may not achieve a binocular balance for your prescription..
i agree that there wasn't have the best way to inform your patient about it.. but hope it helps you sometime..
Yeap
The comparison of HD TV to analog is ok.It is also advaisable to previously have selected 4 types of design based on ; All use ,or which is in your profesional criteria is the best optimized for far ,intermediate or near.
then have 3 different price ranges based on your own personal experience with brands.Do not try to explain or go over to much techinicality over different brands.Keep it simple ,small,medium or large burger,with or without cheese,regular or diet soda.
"I'm here to find the......lens fulfilling your optical needs"
"This version might fit into your budget..........which is_________?"
"You can revert to this technology, which will be adequate for the visual needs of this product"
"This version of the lens is lighter, and clearer, and can be produced with a custom design, according to your new prescription"
"This version of lens production is replacing previous methods of manufacture, and that means________________________to you and your vision."
Need more?
Eyes wide open
First (puts of flame retardant suit), lets pi$$ off a lot of people by saying the truth about the HD TV analogy… it is deceitful and lying and if you use it you are a bad person and worse optician.
Standard TVs have (depending on where you live) 720 x 576 = 414760 pixels or 0,41 megapixels.
HD TVs have 1920 x 1080 = 2073600 pixels or 2,07 megapixels.
The HD TV provides roughly the same field of view as the standard definition TV but with 5 times more detailed image (5x the "visual acuity" to make a gross oversimplification).
Now lets look at the PALs:
The highest Visual Acuity the eye can get is through the prescribed RX and any deviation would reduce it.
The patient would expect to see 5x more details (5x the VA) with his new HD PAL because that is what an HD TV does, but his max VA can not be increased magically from the one provided by the same RX.
"Higher level" PALs primarily increase the field of view by making more of the lens accurate to the prescription (if you believe the marketing BS).
So when making the HD analogy you deceive the patient by implying that the HD lens would increase 5x the visual acuity… when in fact at best he will get a wider field of view and the same max-VA.
The exact opposite of what an HD TV does (and everyone has experienced): same Field Of View with 5x the resolution/"visual acuity".
If interested, you could look into the widescreen and "aspect ratios" angle of the TV comparisons yourself.
I will give my 0.2$ to Happylady question when more free time presents itself.
Last edited by Zaphod Beeblebrox; 02-25-2013 at 05:34 AM.
Look, I dislike the term 'HD' as well, but a wider usable zone isn't the only benefit of a better designed lens, is it?
A better design will offer improved stability of image perception, a smoother transition from far to near, less image size deformation, will manage prism or aniseikonia better and more...
It can give better definition also if combined with iScription from Zeiss or POW compensation.
I'm not sure why you seem so against our attempts to improve our patients vision through lens selection; most of us here aren't actually in it for the money, although I appreciate a lot of opticians are. However, I actually agree with your general point.
Its not deceitful, patients need our dialog to include analogies they can understand. The amount of pixels doesn't carry over into lenses, the patients know this.
We are doing them a disservice if we bombard them with obscure nomenclature that most opticians can't even grasp. Our dialog must be in their language. The HD dialog, although its crude, gives them are reference point most patients can relate to easily because most of us have upgraded to HD TV in the last few years. Although the central view of ground lenses are decent, the peripheral views in general will improve greatly, in both width and clarity. HD is a general term that appliesto multiple layers of television technology, including broadcast spectrum, not only the pixel ratio.
Try using the words "binocular symmetry" even with most opticians, and see how many of us understand it. Patients? It would be a disaster.
First (puts of flame retardant suit
Standard TVs have (depending on where you live) 720 x 576 = 414760 pixels or 0,41 megapixels.
HD TVs have 1920 x 1080 = 2073600 pixels or 2,07 megapixels.
The HD TV provides roughly the same field of view as the standard definition TV but with 5 times more detailed image (5x the "visual acuity" to make a gross oversimplification).
Now lets look at the PALs:
The highest Visual Acuity the eye can get is through the prescribed RX and any deviation would reduce it.
The patient would expect to see 5x more details (5x the VA) with his new HD PAL because that is what an HD TV does, but his max VA can not be increased magically from the one provided by the same RX.
"Higher level" PALs primarily increase the field of view by making more of the lens accurate to the prescription (if you believe the marketing BS).
So when making the HD analogy you deceive the patient by implying that the HD lens would increase 5x the visual acuity… when in fact at best he will get a wider field of view and the same max-VA.
The exact opposite of what an HD TV does (and everyone has experienced): same Field Of View with 5x the resolution/"visual acuity".
If interested, you could look into the widescreen and "aspect ratios" angle of the TV comparisons yourself.
I will give my 0.2$ to Happylady question when more free time presents itself.
Simple truth is that "the grinding method we have used for years and years was plenty good when there were no alternatives. Computers have revolutionized the precision and control over a rx." People generally understand that computers can be more precise than older methods on just about anything. Eyeglasses are no different. It's the next step in advancing optics. Rotary phones worked well too - anyone want one?
I tell folks that if they have an average Rx and fitting parameters, they probably won't see any difference, although some of the free-form generated lenses have particularly good progressive design and function, and that may be noticable.
Those with irregular fitting values (including base curves and PDs) and/or extraordinary Rxs will probably see some degree of improvement in on and off-axis clarity, less noticable blur boundries, increased zone widths and general comfort.
It's a tough call for those who fall between the above scenarios- my recommendation is to under-promise and over-deliver.
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman
Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.
In regards to progressive lenses, most of the patients that come in have no idea all the different kinds of lenses they can be put it in; I focus on a traditional prg lense (ex: Solaone) and compare it to our "hdv" offering (Sola HDV).
When describing our traditional offering, I will use dynamic words like "restricted" or "minimal." to describe the Solaone, and words like "superior viewing angle" or "cadillac of lense" to describe the HDV.
One of my best approaches to a customer who does not think they will benefit from new lenses (HD or not) is to simply say "your vision may not have changed, but the technology has". This really makes them think.
I like Jason H's description above and the very last part of BP3's! These are great decriptions, easily understood, too the point, without sounding like a sales pitch. Once you compare these lenses yourself, that will also help you formulate a method of description as well. Some of the younger opticians will have a hard time with this concept, as they have to go from feedback, as well as information from the manufacturers, or of course optics knowlege, but that is hard to get from current lenses.
It's like the difference of hi- def TV compared to old picture-tube TV or the picture of a 1 Megapixel camera compared to a 12 meg camera.Further, explain the old process of grinding, fining and polishing.Each step was way inferior to the digital process that is not only way more accurate ,it almost doesn't need polishing- it comes off the digital cnc machine already clear and only needs a slight polish - unlike the old grind, fine and heavy polish to make the lens clear.
I couldn't agree more with you , Kevin, it makes no sense in leaving a decision of which progressive to pick to the patient. We should ask questions on work and lifestyle options to determine what is best. Otherwise, they may as well order online.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks