Tint Samples - what do you keep on hand?

[NAICITPO]

OK - worst possible scenario
A professional has a duty of care to the patient, not to do harm, and where appropriate give advice that will improve outcomes. The public have a right to expect all professionals to have sufficient knowledge to do this. The optical professions have a personal responsibility to ensure their competence. Refractive corrections are assessed usually pretty well (although they are at best a compromise) and dispensing is generally good (although can any professional actually say they have the best lens design for the Rx) But if the visual problem is due to stimulus, then does the public actually get a good service? If tints can help an optical condition, does the optical professional have a duty to at least offer the correct filter? And the converse is true, if stimulus can cause a problem, do they have a duty not to prescribe it? The question is, how much of a problem can be caused by inappropriate interventions either by prescribing a poor filter for the patient or alternatively prescribing a filter that makes the problems worse or even introduces new problems. There are large numbers of optical conditions that cannot be addressed using refractive interventions, in some cases only tints will work. These conditions can be life changing. Let's take a controversial scenario - if you have a child that underachieves at school and as a consequence they do not get a good job, have personal problems with self esteem and have a hard life. Then they try a filter and suddenly they can read, everything seems to be ok. They are furious with their optical professional. They have gone to them and said they could not see to read. And all they needed was a properly prescribed tint. Optical professionals are supposed to be experts in tints. Their lives have ruined because of not getting the right tint when it would have sorted their problems out. I suspect a good lawyer would make a scary case! And it could be a lot worse. I have heard of at least one person that was considering this - but he decided not to be litigious. If it came up and there was a well publicised case - then the consequences could be very bad for the optical professions. But there again, I could be wrong. There may be no risk.

In this case the child's optometrist would be the one to be sued and not the optician. And the only way they would win a lawsuit is if they proved the doctor didn't provide an adequate standard of care. If the optometry community as a whole is deaf to this information then knowledge of tints is not a standard and you would not win a lawsuit. But if it wasn't a refractive error and the child still couldn't read our doctors would most likely send the kid to a neuro-ophthalmologist, I have seen them do this several times.

I do not think what tints help a child read are common knowledge in the optical community, but if you have some information I would be interested in reading about it. Send me a PM :-)

[jarralad2]

I have sent you a link - i hope you enjoy - and it is useful.