# Optical Forums > Canadian Discussion Forum >  Opticians Becoming like Haberdashers?

## Excalibur

Is opticianry becoming like haberdashery?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haberdasher

With deregulation of opticians in some jurisdictions and changes in market forces, is the vocation of opticianry slowly becoming extinct like haberdashers?

----------


## AdmiralKnight

I'm asking myself now wether or not to answer this logically, or shake my head at you for trying to expand the arguement to another thread.

I'll try to take the high road here, and answer. I would have to say no, I don't think so. The problem is that it boils down to the public's opinion on wether or not we're needed. The unfortunate thing is the public gets it's queues from people of 'importance'. The more they're told that they don't need us, the more they believe it. It's not helping the matter any when it's the Doctors who don't think we're necessairy. Now, of course, not every doctor is like that. I work in an office with 4 ODs and 3 DOs, and we work wonderfully together, both Os realizing the other has something to bring to the table.

There's no one answer to how to fix this though. Problems like people buying their glasses online, are adding fuel to the fire. A lot of people think we're not necessairy, that you can hire joe blow and teach him how to dispence. Sure. You can get people, and teach them how to fit glasses, and do adjustments. But why take a step back? I believe it was you who said we need to 'clean house', and I would agree. As a country (or countries, in the case of this forum) we need to get regulated nationally... but it's not as simple as that. It's worse so for the US, but for Canada as well, it's the ODs fighting us every step of the way when we try.

----------


## tmorse

> Is opticianry becoming like haberdashery?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haberdasher
> 
> With deregulation of opticians in some jurisdictions and changes in market forces, is the vocation of opticianry slowly becoming extinct like haberdashers?


*I refuse to dignify this question with an answer.* :hammer:

----------


## chip anderson

I think we already have.  Especially since so many of us reguard ourselves as sales people.   We should be painfully becoming aware that the internet is replacing "sales people" at a tremendous rate.


Chip

----------


## HarryChiling

NO, I think the publics perception of an optician has been tarnished over the years.  It does not help that the profession isn't regulated.  Some offices would rather hire receptionists and call them opticians which should be against the law since it is misleading to the client purchaseing eyewear, I think this has lead to some degradation of our profession, but I think that all this can be overcome with education and a little PR.

I dispise those in this profession that claim to have the publics best interest at heart and then subject the public to untrained and ill educated personnel masquaradeing as professionals.  Some go so far as to even have scrubs as uniform in the office which is amazing.  Some use words liek doctor and optometric physician as a means of createing confusion to try and capitalize on the publics misconceptions.

Some in the industry are provideing eyewear online with fictitious formulas to adjust add powers for presbyopes and fictitious formulas that determine OC and PD placement.

I did liek the comment that we need to clean house, but I believe it is an industry wide problem.

----------


## For-Life

I think the biggest thing that has hurt the Opticians has been ODs dispensing.  People now think of ODs as the person who sells glasses.  Probably since there is so much direction during the exams.

----------


## AdmiralKnight

> I think the biggest thing that has hurt the Opticians has been ODs dispensing. People now think of ODs as the person who sells glasses. Probably since there is so much direction during the exams.


I disagree 100%. More than anything, I think it's the big chains that have hurt us as a profession. I've worked in both, and from personal experiance, I've been seen more as a professional in the ODs office than when working Retail. Here in the ODs office, I get people coming in specificly to see "The Optician". They know what were there for, and come to see us specificly when the need arises. On the other hand, when I worked retail, I was seen as a sales person, and little more. I was once told by a friend, when explaining what I did, that; "Oh, you're the guy who tells me my second pair is free.". That hurt, and it's not going to get better untill we start to show that our job has more to it than just selling frames.

----------


## HarryChiling

> it's not going to get better untill we start to show that our job has more to it than just selling frames.


:cheers:

----------


## MarcE

There must be some Canadian politics going on here, so I will stay out of even though I have an opinion.

I initial question seems loaded, leading and biased.

----------


## For-Life

> There must be some Canadian politics going on here, so I will stay out of even though I have an opinion.
> 
> I initial question seems loaded, leading and biased.


It is beyond Canada.  Americans and Canadians are both facing this.  So please comment.

Actually, this thread should be moved to General Discussion.

----------


## LandLord

I think the question is legitimate.  However, it is posed with no factual support.

I'm not aware of deregulation in any jurisdiction in this country.


A similarly baseless question might be:

"With more and more optometrists frequenting gay bars, and changes in market forces, is optometry slowly becoming a homosexual profession like hairstyling?"

----------


## Stonegoat

Commercial optometry/opticianry has, in my opinion, done more to damage the public view of eye care delivery than any other factor.  An optician in Wal-mart, might just as easily be the guy stocking shelves, or greeting at the door, as far as the public is concerned.  The optometrist working at Walmart is certainly regarded with less respect than an optometrist in a private "top-shelf" practice.

If all optometrists and opticians practiced in a manner fitting their education/training/expertise, the public would have a far more favourable view of the said professionals.

I am fortunate to practice in an area with the nearest "commercial" entity over 3 hours away.  I receive GP referrals, daily, patients come to me for any and all eye problems, and I never have to explain what I can do.

Unfortunately though, optometrists and opticains have prostituted themselves to the highest bidder, and as a result feel like they don't get the respect and recognition they deserve.  

I think the adage "you reap what you sow" applies to our respective professions.

What do you think?

----------


## chip anderson

It may be different where you are but O.D.s with few exceptions have always dispensed.  Seems they were origionally opticians and then became "refracting opticians", now evolving into something equilivant to dentists for the eye, under various terms. 
 M.D.'s used to feel it was unethical to dispense or even distrubute any form of Rx.  Some idiot optician started living well and they found out the optical business was profitable.  Once this became common knowledge it ceased to be un-ethical.  In fact in many medical schools medical ethics is no longer part of the corriculum.  Let's face it, everyone else does it seems to be the standard of the day.
And why not when the approach to success is now: "Legislate yourself into a position of exclusivity on products that have evolved to the point where skills are seldom needed.
Such is the world today, we might as well live in it.

Chip

----------


## AdmiralKnight

> Commercial optometry/opticianry has, in my opinion, done more to damage the public view of eye care delivery than any other factor. An optician in Wal-mart, might just as easily be the guy stocking shelves, or greeting at the door, as far as the public is concerned. The optometrist working at Walmart is certainly regarded with less respect than an optometrist in a private "top-shelf" practice.
> 
> If all optometrists and opticians practiced in a manner fitting their education/training/expertise, the public would have a far more favourable view of the said professionals.
> 
> I am fortunate to practice in an area with the nearest "commercial" entity over 3 hours away. I receive GP referrals, daily, patients come to me for any and all eye problems, and I never have to explain what I can do.
> 
> Unfortunately though, optometrists and opticains have prostituted themselves to the highest bidder, and as a result feel like they don't get the respect and recognition they deserve. 
> 
> I think the adage "you reap what you sow" applies to our respective professions.
> ...


Exactly. The unfortunate thing for Opticians is that it will hurt us much more in the long run than it will for Optometrists. We will slowly, but surely, be seen more and more as nothing but sales monkeys. While those ODs working in retail will be looked down a bit more by the general public, a lot of weight and respect is carried by the term "Doctor". No matter where you go, if you go to see "A Doctor" you feel like you're seeing a professional.

----------


## wmcdonald

I don't remember where this quote came from, and I roughly paraphrase, "I have seen the enemy and it is us". Regarding Opticians, anyway, until we get our house in order with standardized education and training across all jurisdictions and state-recognized certification and/or licensure we have a real problem and seemily are going the way of the haberdasher. In many jurisdictions, the only requirement to be an Optician in a pulse.....so what makes us better then the guy stocking the shelves at WalMart? Now someone from an unlicensed state will chime in and say they are the best Opticians on the planet and licensure or certification does not measure quality, but it is an indicator of some level of competence, if only minimal. There are GREAT Opticians from unlicensed states, and I respect them tremendously, because they did it despite the requirements, and it is a testament to their character, but I still feel Opticianry as a profession needs validation from someone other than ourselves.

Independent Opticians are getting fewer and fewer. It was not the "Chains" that did us the most harm, because those in control of the earliest chains were Opticians who did not support licensing because they would have to pay higher salaries if licensure were in place (my opinion, but based on experience). ODs did not help, but in my region of the US did not have a great deal of respect until the 70s, when they tightened up educational requirements and demanded more and more of their future practitioners until they reached the heights they have obtained today. They fought for their profession. Wow, what a novel thought......Opticians need to follow the model they developed in an organized manner. 

Now, I know I sound harsh towards Opticiansry, but belive me, that is FAR from the truth. I support making Opticianry better as mush as anyone, and as Harry mentioned above, I have disdain for those who have done nothing for anyone other than themselves. But we must objectively review where we are and where we want to be. We need to strategically look to the future I often sound hypercritical of Optometry in posts here, but that is not true either. They are doing their best to improve every day, while Opticianry wonders what happened. Opticians in the US need to take a look at the Canadian Opticians and see what they have done to advance. They all have licenses, and a required FORMAL education. 

OK enough rambling. I am sure I'll raise the ire of someone here, but the future is coming. We all need to work together to become the best that we can be.

----------


## chip anderson

"I have seen the enemy and it is us."   Pogo possum in the cartoon strip "Pogo."
Not positive on exact wording, might have been: "I have seen the enemy and we are it." or something like that.

Chip

----------


## HarryChiling

There are some great strides being made, but I find myself constantly disappointed.  I know many opticians who would rather talk about action than be about action.  There is a model that has worked time and time again, it has been mapped out and available to opticians for years.  The Canadian Opticians have taken this path and although difficult they are now reaping the fruits of their labor.  Canada has now become a model for what opticians in the USA can and should acheive, but the road is difficult and along the way the naysayers say "the profession will go the way of the haberdasher", and speculate all kinds of wonderfull things.  They are all just that speculation, some of it is based on logic, some on what would benefit their particular situation.

From an OD's perspective what would be better than opticians going the way of the dinosaur?  Less competition of course they would liek that and have tried legislatively to make it happen yet we are still her as a thron in the side.  Every now and again things happen for instance this thread was brought about by a previous thread about Ontario Opticians being able to refract and although it started out civil eventually the true colors came through.  I found it interesting that an OD that responded that they agreed that opticians should be able to refract later was so adament about the fact that it was worng and it was refered to as "regressive care".  Same thing happened in the state of PA, optometry was for opticians beign licensed, but at the last minte changed their minds and used their influence to squash a bill.  Since then the state has suffered from the same issues that all other non licensed states suffer from that gets mentioned here all the time, "any idiot can dispense, so the chains open up shop all over town squeezing out private practices (OD and Opticians)".  They pay low wages so they are able to undercut the private practice by cuting labor costs, but they are wise enough to put these sales monkeys in white lab coats or fancy sports jackets therefore emulateing a professional.  

Dr. McDoanlad hit the nail on the head with the chains.  They are against licensure it wold hurt their business model.  If they had it their way soon opticians will refract they may hire on doctor to staff a store and the hire a gaggle of refracting opticians.  Call it a super optical, larger than a walmart open 24/7 one doctor OK'ing refraction and the gaggle of opticians writing scripts.  Of course they would have the largest selection, lowest prices, and an on site lab.  Sound familiar it's almost reminicent of a large chain that plagues the US.




> "I have seen the enemy and it is us".


Truer words have never been spoken (btw do I get extra credit for this) :D




> I think the adage "you reap what you sow" applies to our respective professions.


You are right, but I think that we are a lot more alike than most optometrists would liek to admit.  I think the problem is that when were cut it takes a while before your professions bleeds.  The backlash of non licensed dispensers has hurt both of us, of course it didn't hurt you as much and it took a while.

----------


## Excalibur

> I found it interesting that an OD that responded that they agreed that opticians should be able to refract later was so adament about the fact that it was worng and it was refered to as "regressive care".


WRONG.

I SAID that opticians should be able to refract but NOT independent of DIRECT OMD or OD supervision. GET THAT STRAIGHT and don't say things I did not say. Understand?? :finger:

----------


## Excalibur

> I don't remember where this quote came from, and I roughly paraphrase, "I have seen the enemy and it is us". Regarding Opticians, anyway, until we get our house in order with standardized education and training across all jurisdictions and state-recognized certification and/or licensure we have a real problem and seemily are going the way of the haberdasher. In many jurisdictions, the only requirement to be an Optician in a pulse.....so what makes us better then the guy stocking the shelves at WalMart? Now someone from an unlicensed state will chime in and say they are the best Opticians on the planet and licensure or certification does not measure quality, but it is an indicator of some level of competence, if only minimal. There are GREAT Opticians from unlicensed states, and I respect them tremendously, because they did it despite the requirements, and it is a testament to their character, but I still feel Opticianry as a profession needs validation from someone other than ourselves.
> 
> Independent Opticians are getting fewer and fewer. It was not the "Chains" that did us the most harm, because those in control of the earliest chains were Opticians who did not support licensing because they would have to pay higher salaries if licensure were in place (my opinion, but based on experience). ODs did not help, but in my region of the US did not have a great deal of respect until the 70s, when they tightened up educational requirements and demanded more and more of their future practitioners until they reached the heights they have obtained today. They fought for their profession. Wow, what a novel thought......Opticians need to follow the model they developed in an organized manner. 
> 
> Now, I know I sound harsh towards Opticiansry, but belive me, that is FAR from the truth. I support making Opticianry better as mush as anyone, and as Harry mentioned above, I have disdain for those who have done nothing for anyone other than themselves. But we must objectively review where we are and where we want to be. We need to strategically look to the future I often sound hypercritical of Optometry in posts here, but that is not true either. They are doing their best to improve every day, while Opticianry wonders what happened. Opticians in the US need to take a look at the Canadian Opticians and see what they have done to advance. They all have licenses, and a required FORMAL education. 
> 
> OK enough rambling. I am sure I'll raise the ire of someone here, but the future is coming. We all need to work together to become the best that we can be.



A good and honest post. IMHO. :o

----------


## HarryChiling

> WRONG.
> 
> I SAID that opticians should be able to refract but NOT independent of DIRECT OMD or OD supervision. GET THAT STRAIGHT and don't say things I did not say. Understand?? :finger:


To quote:

http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...98&postcount=8



> I don't see any problems in patient care if an optician refracts as long as it is part of a complete assessment under the supervision of an OD or OMD.


http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...9&postcount=17



> which brings me to another observation....
> refraction-only visits were the 'norm' decades ago. Going to this sort of scenario is regressive patient care. 
> If you haven't looked inside the patient's eye, how can it be called an assessment? This is certainly is not in the patient's best interest.
> There are many, many patients I see monthly that would be far worse off if all I counted on was refractive data to judge their eyehealth/visual prognosis.


http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...6&postcount=94



> Most of those who lobby for independent refraction have little or any clinical knowledge or experience. Opticianry would be far more ahead if these people placed accredited and credible education first, and legal changes second -- much like optometry did over the last 50 years to expand into ocular therapeutics. If they really wanted to do good for the people they see, they would learn refraction, learn pathology and become optometrists or ophthalmologists.


You did mention refraction under the direct supervision of an OD or OMD, then later you reffered to it as regressive care.  If you care to explain what this means by all means I am listening, but it's all there.  If what you menat was opticians should be able to refrcat while you watch then your later comment about every optometrist sshould own an optician would be correct.  Here in the states as it stands OMP are allowed to refract under the direct supervision of an OMD, so changeing the laws in the way I think you suggest means OD's can sip a pina collada while watching opticians refract all their patients.

(Independent Stand Alone Refractions) This is what every opne seems to keep argueing about, Excalibur you keep seperateing the safe guards that are being put into place from the stand alone refraction.  It by all means doesn;t mena that over night every optician will be able to refract it takes 6 years through NAIT to get there and if I am correct it takes 8 years to get through optometry school.  On top of that their are screening guidelines to seperate the higher risk patients which need to be reffered to an OD or OMD.

----------


## Excalibur

My position on how things should be conducted is very simple. I will keep it simple so you understand it. :hammer:

1. Patient presents in office.
2. Completes history form (if new patient)
3. Staff review history form.
4. Technical staff/optician perform acuities, objective/subjective refraction, and other tests as directed by doctor eg. visual fields, tonometry, gonioscopy, etc etc
5. Doctor is provided results when consults with patient. Discusses history and chief complaint. Reviews findings. May confirm refractive data. Examines anterior segment. 
6. Staff dilate patient. Patient waits and/or may consult with optician or other technical staff about eyewear requirements, etc.
7. Patient's retina is evaluated via binocular/monocular ophthalmoscopy. Findings and recommendations discussed with patient. Patient proceeds to front desk to book any further appointments, or further discuss eyewear recommendations with optician and/or technical staff.

Notice how the optician/technical staff performed the refraction, and the doctor examined the patient during the visit. The clinical bases were covered and full scope care was provided. There was no phony doctor-patient relationship a la remote Rx-signing by a doctor who has never seen the patient. Everything was done in my model above-board in the best interest of the patient.... and that is how I do it in my clinic. 

Simple? of course. Effective? Certainly. Ubiquitous? not yet. Difficult to do? Nope.

----------


## HarryChiling

> My position on how things should be conducted is very simple. I will keep it simple so you understand it. :hammer:
> 
> 1. Patient presents in office.
> 2. Completes history form (if new patient)
> 3. Staff review history form.
> 4. Technical staff/optician perform acuities, objective/subjective refraction, and other tests as directed by doctor eg. visual fields, tonometry, gonioscopy, etc etc
> 5. Doctor is provided results when consults with patient. Discusses history and chief complaint. Reviews findings. May confirm refractive data. Examines anterior segment. 
> 6. Staff dilate patient. Patient waits and/or may consult with optician or other technical staff about eyewear requirements, etc.
> 7. Patient's retina is evaluated via binocular/monocular ophthalmoscopy. Findings and recommendations discussed with patient. Patient proceeds to front desk to book any further appointments, or further discuss eyewear recommendations with optician and/or technical staff.
> ...


That is the role of an OMP, however as it stands now they can only perform these procedures under the direct supervision of an ophthalmologist.  You are saying that opticians should do exactly that but do it under an optometrists.  What you suggest if you look at it from my perspective is expanding your scope of practice, not opticians.  As it stands now optometrists are not allowed to delegate these task to their personel, what you suggest is a model to make that happen.

----------


## Excalibur

> That is the role of an OMP, however as it stands now they can only perform these procedures under the direct supervision of an ophthalmologist.  You are saying that opticians should do exactly that but do it under an optometrists.  What you suggest if you look at it from my perspective is expanding your scope of practice, not opticians.  As it stands now optometrists are not allowed to delegate these task to their personel, what you suggest is a model to make that happen.


I use trained, certified technical staff to do my data gathering and dispensing. An optician is not necessary in my office but it would not hurt.

----------


## HarryChiling

> I use trained, certified technical staff to do my data gathering and dispensing. An optician is not necessary in my office but it would not hurt.


The certified optometric assistant program you mentioned in the previous thread is a one year correspondence course that you proctor (I won;t question your ethic on the proctoring since you haven't lead me to question it).  The program has 4 modules, one on frame and one on lenses.  That would be the equivalent of 3 months on frames and 3 months on lenses, opticians in CA have to go through a 2 year course to become opticians and pass a national examination.  Weather you see it or not you cheapen the profession with optometric assistants, and I have heard arguements that opticiasn just want to look like OD's that's why we want to refract, but you hire staff that are meant to look like opticians to your patient.

An optician is not necessary in your office, then you don't dispense.

----------


## Excalibur

> The certified optometric assistant program you mentioned in the previous thread is a one year correspondence course that you proctor (I won;t question your ethic on the proctoring since you haven't lead me to question it).  The program has 4 modules, one on frame and one on lenses.  That would be the equivalent of 3 months on frames and 3 months on lenses, opticians in CA have to go through a 2 year course to become opticians and pass a national examination.  Weather you see it or not you cheapen the profession with optometric assistants, and I have heard arguements that opticiasn just want to look like OD's that's why we want to refract, but you hire staff that are meant to look like opticians to your patient.
> 
> An optician is not necessary in your office, then you don't dispense.


In most cases, dispensing frames and lenses is not rocket science. My certified staff do great on frame adjustments too, and frankly no worse (and often better) than the people that do this sort of stuff in the local optical shops. If the staff require assistance (and they do work quite closely with me), I handle the technical/professional side of things. 

I guess you just don't get it (even my young grade school kids would understand and agree with my arguments here... unlike yourself) --- dispensing a 'bum' pair of specs rarely (or maybe never) affects patient outcomes in any serious or irreparable way. But independently refracting has MUCH more risk of harm as documented very well (and often) elsewhere on this board. 

So, in summary maybe you're a lot less important than you think you are. Opticians have some importance, perhaps in more technical areas in laboratories and lens design. They don't really need to be present in a doctor's office to maximize patient experience and outcome. They should certainly not independently refract without direct doctor supervision.  And frankly, in most cases certified optometric assistants do an excellent job of assisting with patient care with less attitude than guys like you.

----------


## HarryChiling

> In most cases, dispensing frames and lenses is not rocket science. My certified staff do great on frame adjustments too, and frankly no worse (and often better) than the people that do this sort of stuff in the local optical shops. If the staff require assistance (and they do work quite closely with me), I handle the technical/professional side of things. 
> 
> *I guess you just don't get it (even my young grade school kids would understand and agree with my arguments here... unlike yourself) --- dispensing a 'bum' pair of specs rarely (or maybe never) affects patient outcomes in any serious or irreparable way. But independently refracting has MUCH more risk of harm as documented very well (and often) elsewhere on this board.* 
> 
> So, in summary maybe you're a lot less important than you think you are. Opticians have some importance, perhaps in more technical areas in laboratories and lens design. They don't really need to be present in a doctor's office to maximize patient experience and outcome. They should certainly not independently refract without direct doctor supervision. *And frankly, in most cases certified optometric assistants do an excellent job of assisting with patient care with less attitude than guys like you*.


I reserve the attitude for guys like you. Iguess that about sums it up you provide "BUM"eyewear to your patients, I guess that's why you go by Excalibur and I go by my name. I am not important at all, the service I provide to my clients are the most important thing in my mind and in theirs while they are with me, it is schmucks like you that have degraded my profession and yours. 

Don't worry Excaliber pull that mighty sword (what's best for the patient) outa that rock you call your head and insert elsewhere.

----------


## Excalibur

> I reserve the attitude for guys like you. Iguess that about sums it up you provide "BUM"eyewear to your patients, I guess that's why you go by Excalibur and I go by my name. I am not important at all, the service I provide to my clients are the most important thing in my mind and in theirs while they are with me, it is schmucks like you that have degraded my profession and yours. 
> 
> Don't worry Excaliber pull that mighty sword (what's best for the patient) outa that rock you call your head and insert elsewhere.


There you go again.... whining. So whose your daddy? :D

We RARELY ever dispense an incorrect rx or one that causes adaptation problems. We get a ton of GP and other specialty referrals because we do great work. Yup... we must be a disgrace to the community... give me a break. You obviously have a reading disability because you supposedly read my posts and then try to quote me with completely different terminology. And you're telling me that my staff are somehow less capable than you? Excuse me for personalizing this, but you really aren't the sharpest tool in the optical shed. 

Pout all you want but it won't get you anywhere.

----------


## Excalibur

"Harry the Haberdasher"

Has a nice ring to it!

----------


## Fezz

> Excuse me for personalizing this, but you really aren't the sharpest tool in the optical shed.



I have seen the shed, and I have seen many of the tools that reside there. Let me be the first to say-Harry *IS* the sharpest knife in that shed. Its a shame that you have never dealt with an Optician of his ability. The personal attacks are uncalled for.

----------


## HarryChiling

> dispensing a 'bum' pair of specs *rarely (or maybe never)* affects patient outcomes in any serious or irreparable way. But independently refracting has *MUCH more risk of harm as documented* very well (and often) elsewhere on this board.


 
Very inetersting, whose doing the documenting?  Define rarely in context to what's best for the patient?

If you get to assume that all opticians would provide substandard refractions and miss pathology, why won't you allow me to assume that all staff that are not opticians provide "bum" eyewear.




> There you go again.... whining. So whose your daddy? :D


Welcome to the dark side, I got tough skin and actually enjoy it better this way, cupcake. ;)

----------


## Excalibur

> I have seen the shed, and I have seen many of the tools that reside there. Let me be the first to say-Harry *IS* the sharpest knife in that shed. Its a shame that you have never dealt with an Optician of his ability. The personal attacks are uncalled for.


Read Harry's posts. He is in attack mode and his posts are absolutely shameful and rude. 

If he's the 'sharpest' optician you have, you are in a sorry state of affairs! :(

----------


## HarryChiling

> "Harry the Haberdasher"
> 
> Has a nice ring to it!


My father was a tailor, my mother was a tailor, my grandmother was a tailor. I know what haberdasher measn and it has no sting. Matter of fact I have seen Ronald Regan in his underwear wile my dad was fitting him for a custom made suit. His wife would have my mother hand emroider table cloths at white house events. I come from a long line of talented people, the trade is unimportant we take pride in what we do so we are always the best or spend many sleepless nights trying to be the best.

----------


## Excalibur

> Very inetersting, whose doing the documenting?  Define rarely in context to what's best for the patient?
> 
> If you get to assume that all opticians would provide substandard refractions and miss pathology, why won't you allow me to assume that all staff that are not opticians provide "bum" eyewear.
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the dark side, I got tough skin and actually enjoy it better this way, cupcake. ;)


You really are slow. What is the greater likelihood of harm? dispensing an rx that is incorrect or missing a glaucoma or some other pathology? 

Give me a break.

----------


## chip anderson

I wonder how many optiboarders even know what a haberdasher is?

----------


## HarryChiling

> You really are slow. What is the greater likelihood of harm? dispensing an rx that is incorrect or missing a glaucoma or some other pathology? 
> 
> Give me a break.


You can't have it both way's when your arguement always comes downt o what's best for the patient. NO HARM is best for the patient. Yes their is far more likely hood of a refraction without a health assesment being harmfull to a client than dispensing of eyewear. But that's why they are working on safe guards and screening to reduce that risk. 

The world isn't black and white there ius rtisk every where, but the data supplied earlier that you keep refering too has no meaning and wasn't really meant to have meaning.

I don't want to keep argueing with you, sweetheart.

----------


## Excalibur

> My father was a tailor, my mother was a tailor, my grandmother was a tailor.  I know what haberdasher measn and it has no sting.  Matter of fact I have seen Ronald Regan in his underwear wile my dad was fitting him for a custom made suit.  His wife would have my mother hand emroider table cloths at white house events.  I come from a long line of talented people, the trade is unimportant we take pride in what we do so we are always the best or spend many sleepless nights trying to be the best.



And as Ronald Reagan would say.... "there you go again...." 

and Mr Harry... you are no Ronald Reagan... or for that matter... you are no JFK. 

Take pride in your vocation. It is a noble one. But opticianry is going the way of haberdashery. Optometry is very successfully caring for the 'fat part' of the bell curve of eye problems, and opticianry has been marginalized. Optometry works very well with ophthalmology on the grass roots level, gets a lot of research funding, and is growing its influence in hospital and research based environments because it has an excellent talent based of people who are working on principles ahead of profits. I proudly include myself in this group.

So... go to your local bar. Sip back a few cold ones and go sell a lot of glasses tomorrow. And don't forget to stop by your local computer shop and buy a decent spell checker-- your posts are giving us all a headache. You're probably a pretty good guy, but don't make yourself more important than you are.

----------


## Excalibur

> You can't have it both way's when your arguement always comes downt o what's best for the patient. NO HARM is best for the patient. Yes their is far more likely hood of a refraction without a health assesment being harmfull to a client than dispensing of eyewear. But that's why they are working on safe guards and screening to reduce that risk. 
> 
> The world isn't black and white there ius rtisk every where, but the data supplied earlier that you keep refering too has no meaning and wasn't really meant to have meaning.
> 
> I don't want to keep argueing with you, sweetheart.


Sorry Hairy... but as a happily married male, I don't swing that way. 

Here is the safeguard -- do the refracting and ocular diagnostic checking in one office, together, as per my model cited earlier in this thread. It's that easy. All other attempts at 'safeguards' are BS and smoke and mirrors.

----------


## HarryChiling

> So... go to your local bar. Sip back a few cold ones and go sell a lot of glasses tomorrow. And don't forget to stop by your local computer shop and buy a decent spell checker-- your posts are giving us all a headache. You're probably a pretty good guy, but don't make yourself more important than you are.


I tihk I wlil go to my lcoal bar and hvae a dirnk, srroy if I gvie you a haedhcae. :D

----------


## HarryChiling

> Sorry Hairy... *but as a happily married to a male, I swing that way*. 
> 
> Here is the safeguard -- do the refracting and ocular diagnostic checking in one office, together, as per my model cited earlier in this thread. It's that easy. All other attempts at 'safeguards' are BS and smoke and mirrors.


Will opticians be allowed to hire an OD in yoru model? Will refrction require a health assesment at every visit?

It could make sense, but you don't agree with it which is fine, but it's easier to just say so then to beat around the bush and I was just jokeing abotu the sweetheart thing I didn't know you seriously swung that way.

----------


## Excalibur

> Will opticians be allowed to hire an OD in yoru model? Will refrction require a health assesment at every visit?
> 
> It could make sense, but you don't agree with it which is fine, but it's easier to just say so then to beat around the bush and I was just jokeing abotu the sweetheart thing I didn't know you seriously swung that way.


1. Health assessment frequency is at the discretion of the doctor who is responsible for the patient's care. 
2. Opticians cannot hire the doctor. The doctor is the prescriber, and being hired by the optician may lead to influence of the prescriber by the employer. 
3. Doctor can hire an optician.

----------


## obxeyeguy

> My position on how things should be conducted is very simple. I will keep it simple so you understand it. :hammer:
> 
> 1. Patient presents in office.
> 2. Completes history form (if new patient)
> 3. Staff review history form.
> 4. Technical staff/optician perform acuities, objective/subjective refraction, and other tests as directed by doctor eg. visual fields, tonometry, gonioscopy, etc etc
> 5. Doctor is provided results when consults with patient. Discusses history and chief complaint. Reviews findings. May confirm refractive data. Examines anterior segment. 
> 6. Staff dilate patient. Patient waits and/or may consult with optician or other technical staff about eyewear requirements, etc.
> 7. Patient's retina is evaluated via binocular/monocular ophthalmoscopy. Findings and recommendations discussed with patient. Patient proceeds to front desk to book any further appointments, or further discuss eyewear recommendations with optician and/or technical staff.
> ...


Substitute " walmart greeter" for optician/technical staff in a whole lot of OD, MD practices.

----------


## HarryChiling

> 1. Health assessment frequency is at the discretion of the doctor who is responsible for the patient's care. 
> 2. *Opticians cannot hire the doctor. The doctor is the prescriber, and being hired by the optician may lead to influence of the prescriber by the employer.* 
> 3. Doctor can hire an optician.


That part is interesting, we have gone for so many years with OD's dispensing what they prescribe without ethics being called into play, let's just assume for sake of arguement that this is because OD's are ethicaly solid.  If an optician were to hire an OD all of a sudden their could be influence.

I would think that the influence of money would be a driving force in both these arguements so why would one be allowed while the other is not.

The point of gaining rights as to refract is to allow opticians to be more in control of their profession, your model just enslaves them even further.

Optometrists have adopted a medical model and this is opinion and experience dispised the optical part of the practice, but their comes a certain point where your profession has stretched itself to thin.  Opticians are now realizing how much more scope of practice we can acheive adn I look forward to my future as Harry "the haberdasher" Chiling.

----------


## keithbenjamin

I'm probably not one of the sharpest tools in the shed either, but I'm not sure I understand why refractions and health assessments must be inextricably and legally tied. Sure, a refraction is an opportunity for an exam, but don't people without refractive errors require eye exams? So, why not take it a step further and make it a legal requirement that every man, woman, and child visit their local OD for an annual exam. And while we are passing nanny legislation, throw in annual mammographies, prostate exams, colonoscopies, blood tests, and any other exam you can think of that might be good for me. ...and of course the tax pay... I mean the Government should pay for it all. 

The bottom line is independently refracting opticians would deal a huge financial blow to the optometric profession (which I can sympathize with) but any other arguments are BS and smoke and mirrors.

Given the current state of affairs, I don't think ODs have much cause for concern. 

-Keith

----------


## Excalibur

> I'm probably not one of the sharpest tools in the shed either, but I'm not sure I understand why refractions and health assessments must be inextricably and legally tied. Sure, a refraction is an opportunity for an exam, but don't people without refractive errors require eye exams? So, why not take it a step further and make it a legal requirement that every man, woman, and child visit their local OD for an annual exam. And while we are passing nanny legislation, throw in annual mammographies, prostate exams, colonoscopies, blood tests, and any other exam you can think of that might be good for me. ...and of course the tax pay... I mean the Government should pay for it all. 
> 
> The bottom line is independently refracting opticians would deal a huge financial blow to the optometric profession (which I can sympathize with) but any other arguments are BS and smoke and mirrors.
> 
> Given the current state of affairs, I don't think ODs have much cause for concern. 
> 
> -Keith


Is it that difficult for patients to have a refraction and eye health assessment together, at the same visit? Is it so much of an inconvenience? I doubt it. There are enough ODs and OMDs in the overwhelming majority of this continent (ie. North America) that accessibility is not an issue for 95&#37; of the population. Where financial cost is an issue, I trust that welfare or some social safety net exists in most areas. 

If you can't do it 'right', why do it all? why give a patient false hope by giving them a refraction only and telling them all is well. 

Folks... my agenda may well be interpreted as being a matter of self-preservation, but I have 16,000 patients in my database. That's enough for a few doctors to manage. I don't need to see another new patient again in my career, and I've only be practicing approximately 15 yrs. With simple attrition and not recalling patients and attracting new ones, I'll still be busy 20 yrs from now. My agenda is simply to do what's right, and what is right is to assess the patient's vision and ocular health at the time of their visit. Why de-compartmentalize something into a refraction (by a sight tester at site A) and then (maybe) an eye health assessment (at site B) by a doctor? This is not in the interest of the patient, and is simply being considered by sight-testers for profit sake. Their agenda is simply profit ahead of principle rather than the other way around.

----------


## HarryChiling

> If you can't do it 'right', why do it all? why give a patient false hope by giving them a refraction only and telling them all is well.


Tell your opticians, I mean optomertic technicians that.  While ou are at it why even create a position such as an optometric technician when their are so many opticians available to fill the position.  Your points have all been brougt up before and they are really no longer valid in a few places and eventually I feel that it will be this way across your country and maybe even ours if we can get our act together.

You would be in a better position to embace it and poise your office to take advantage of it or fight it tooth and nail and regret the opportunities you missed while shaig your fist.

----------


## Excalibur

> Tell your opticians, I mean optomertic technicians that.  While ou are at it why even create a position such as an optometric technician when their are so many opticians available to fill the position.  Your points have all been brougt up before and they are really no longer valid in a few places and eventually I feel that it will be this way across your country and maybe even ours if we can get our act together.
> 
> You would be in a better position to embace it and poise your office to take advantage of it or fight it tooth and nail and regret the opportunities you missed while shaig your fist.


Simple economics is why I won't hire an optician at this time, as well as restrictions on hiring one in my area. 

Two optometric technicians can be hired at the cost of one optician. This allows better efficiency, more attentive service, and they work closely with me in the practice so all of the patient's optical needs are taken care of. Therefore no need to hire an optician, although if one of my techs decided to move on, I might hire an optician if the regulations are changed and opticians become available at $15 or $20/hr or so.

----------


## For-Life

> Simple economics is why I won't hire an optician at this time, as well as restrictions on hiring one in my area. 
> 
> Two optometric technicians can be hired at the cost of one optician. This allows better efficiency, more attentive service, and they work closely with me in the practice so all of the patient's optical needs are taken care of. Therefore no need to hire an optician, although if one of my techs decided to move on, I might hire an optician if the regulations are changed and opticians become available at $15 or $20/hr or so.


and simple economic is why some Opticians want to refract without OD or OMD supervision.

----------


## Excalibur

> and simple economic is why some Opticians want to refract without OD or OMD supervision.


Yes, and at the risk of causing more cases like these:

http://www.optometrists.bc.ca/webupl...studies_04.pdf

There is no harm in having well-trained certified optometric technicians working in my office, consulting with me, and assisting with my patient cases, yet there is ample risk of causing harm by doing independent sight testing. The link above lists many cases of such harm. I trust there are many, many more cases like these that didn't even make this 'honor' roll. 

How sad that some opticians want to pad their pockets by sight testing rather than protect the public.

----------


## obxeyeguy

> How sad that some opticians want to pad their pockets





> Simple economics is why I won't hire an optician at this time, as well as restrictions on hiring one in my area. 
> 
> Two optometric technicians can be hired at the cost of one optician.


Whos padding their pockets now doc??

----------


## AdmiralKnight

As revealing as this thread is as to how little respect there is cross-profession in this industry, I honestly think it should be closed. It's been nothing but mudslinging for the past few pages, and while there is truth to both sides of this argument, its obvious that neither side is going to sway the other. This is a professional forum, and a lot of the posts in this thread haven't been anywhere near that caliber. If you really want to have this debate, the PM system would probably be a better bet than this open forum. The public can read this, and it shows badly on the entire Opthalmic community to see such bickering. :\

----------


## Excalibur

> Whos padding their pockets now doc??



Please read the entire thread before posting such a ridiculous statement.

Two certified optometric technicians in consultation with the doctor are more than able to assist in managing the same case load as one doctor and one optician working co-operatively in a clinical setting. The technicians cost slightly more than the salary of the optician so how is this allowing me to "pad my pockets?". My way of 'doing things' cost me more in payroll! Are you really that bad at simple math that lets you make this allegation? (aren't opticians at least supposed to be good in math-- you need to at least be able transpose cylinders and make other optical calculations, right?)

Remember that these people are working with me IN MY PRACTICE, under MY SUPERVISION and I see the file, provide the management plan and diagnosis and discharge the patient when they case is completed. How is that a disadvantage to the patient? The only person who is disadvantaged is an over-priced optician! :cry:

----------


## Excalibur

> As revealing as this thread is as to how little respect there is cross-profession in this industry, I honestly think it should be closed. It's been nothing but mudslinging for the past few pages, and while there is truth to both sides of this argument, its obvious that neither side is going to sway the other. This is a professional forum, and a lot of the posts in this thread haven't been anywhere near that caliber. If you really want to have this debate, the PM system would probably be a better bet than this open forum. The public can read this, and it shows badly on the entire Opthalmic community to see such bickering. :\


I agree with most of your commentary, however, I will not let sight testers have their way at the risk of public safety so they can pad their pockets.

----------


## For-Life

> I agree with most of your commentary, however, I will not let sight testers have their way at the risk of public safety so they can pad their pockets.


You will find most people on this forum is against site testing.  We see it both ways

----------


## HarryChiling

Before it gets closed lets shed some light about all those cases of pathology that are missed:

http://www.nei.nih.gov/eyedata/pbd_tables.asp

You can see from the data that when the number of patients with pathology according to age becomes a risk they are already outside of the age limits of sight testing opticians.  It might be more likely that a patinet would have a reaction to some of the more commonly used drops in the office than if they were to have pathology and fit the requirements of seeing a sight testing optician.

----------


## Excalibur

> You will find most people on this forum is against site testing.  We see it both ways


That is reassuring.

----------


## Excalibur

> Before it gets closed lets shed some light about all those cases of pathology that are missed:
> 
> http://www.nei.nih.gov/eyedata/pbd_tables.asp
> 
> You can see from the data that when the number of patients with pathology according to age becomes a risk they are already outside of the age limits of sight testing opticians.  It might be more likely that a patinet would have a reaction to some of the more commonly used drops in the office than if they were to have pathology and fit the requirements of seeing a sight testing optician.


Let's not try to justify that independent sight testing is somehow designed for the better good of society. The people listed here http://www.optometrists.bc.ca/webupl...studies_04.pdf were all quite young, assessed by sight testers, and harmed despite the fact that there were alleged 'safety measures' (that were ignored by sight testers) in place.

----------


## mike.elmes

This thread has not one iota of useful information. In fact it has done nothing more than stir the pot of animosity between Optometry and Opticianry...

In Alberta and BC where sight testing is an accepted everyday practice, we don't have the friction between professions I see in Ontario.
Clearly this thread was started to insult Opticians.

----------


## Excalibur

> This thread has not one iota of useful information. 
> In Alberta and BC where sight testing is an accepted everyday practice, we don't have the friction between professions I see in Ontario.


You must be joking. 

If there wasn't any animosity, would the BC association had bothered to collect this information?

http://www.optometrists.bc.ca/webupl...studies_04.pdf

----------


## mike.elmes

What we have is Optometry fear mongering and defending their turf.:finger:
The public doesn't need legislation forcing a complete medical examination every time they need an update of their glasses.

----------


## LandLord

> I'm probably not one of the sharpest tools in the shed either, but I'm not sure I understand why refractions and health assessments must be inextricably and legally tied. Sure, a refraction is an opportunity for an exam, but don't people without refractive errors require eye exams? So, why not take it a step further and make it a legal requirement that every man, woman, and child visit their local OD for an annual exam. And while we are passing nanny legislation, throw in annual mammographies, prostate exams, colonoscopies, blood tests, and any other exam you can think of that might be good for me. ...and of course the tax pay... I mean the Government should pay for it all. 
> 
> The bottom line is independently refracting opticians would deal a huge financial blow to the optometric profession (which I can sympathize with) but any other arguments are BS and smoke and mirrors.
> 
> Given the current state of affairs, I don't think ODs have much cause for concern. 
> 
> -Keith


Hats off to a true post.

----------


## LandLord

> Their agenda is simply profit ahead of principle





> Simple economics is why I won't hire an optician.


Humour me, Excalibur. What kind of car do you drive? Be honest, now.

----------


## LandLord

> The people listed here http://www.optometrists.bc.ca/webupl...studies_04.pdf were all quite young, assessed by sight testers, and harmed despite the fact that there were alleged 'safety measures' (that were ignored by sight testers) in place.


I'd like to see a list of people that were harmed by the average Walmart optometrist who pumps out 40 scripts a day and overlooks many pathologies.

----------


## LandLord

> You must be joking. 
> 
> If there wasn't any animosity, would the BC association had bothered to collect this information?
> 
> http://www.optometrists.bc.ca/webupl...studies_04.pdf


Come on Mother Teresa, OD. Do you really believe that optometrists don't care about their "refracting turf?" Do you donate ALL of your exam fees to charity?

Let me guess.  You see 20+ patients a day and have a high conversion rate.  You make $250K.

----------


## Excalibur

> Humour me, Excalibur. What kind of car do you drive? Be honest, now.


BMW 3 series.

----------


## Excalibur

> Come on Mother Teresa, OD. Do you really believe that optometrists don't care about their "refracting turf?" Do you donate ALL of your exam fees to charity?
> 
> Let me guess.  You see 20+ patients a day and have a high conversion rate.  You make $250K.


1. Optometrists do care about their scope of practice, and the degradation of quality of eye care that independent sight testing brings to the eye care community.

2. I do donate to various charities. I have a family to support too. Do you donate all your 300% markups on glasses (typical optical shop markups) to charity?

3. I see 15 to 25 patients per day. This is a mix of full and partial visits.

4. I make far less than 250K/annum

----------


## Excalibur

> What we have is Optometry fear mongering and defending their turf.:finger:
> The public doesn't need legislation forcing a complete medical examination every time they need an update of their glasses.


A full ocular assessment is NOT necessarily performed EVERY time a patient is assessed in a primary care practice. It is assessed based on the doctor's judgment. The frequency depends on the patient's risk profile, which is determined from the information gathered from previous visits.

When a patient visits an independent sight tester, a risk profile cannot be generated as the sight tester is incapable of making any risk profile judgment.

----------


## Excalibur

> I'd like to see a list of people that were harmed by the average Walmart optometrist who pumps out 40 scripts a day and overlooks many pathologies.


You'd love to see a list but you'd be hard pressed to find one. An average Walmart doctor is far more competent and safer than an average sight tester.

----------


## mike.elmes

> A full ocular assessment is NOT necessarily performed EVERY time a patient is assessed in a primary care practice. It is assessed based on the doctor's judgment. The frequency depends on the patient's risk profile, which is determined from the information gathered from previous visits.
> *
>  When a patient visits an independent sight tester, a risk profile cannot be generated as the sight tester is incapable of making any risk profile judgment.*


Obviously you know NOTHING of the restrictions in place to prevent patients who fall into this risk profile from being tested. Also they have been seen by an ophthalmologist or optometrist within the past 2-4 years, and it is there that their ocular health has been assessed.

----------


## Excalibur

> Obviously you know NOTHING of the restrictions in place to prevent patients who fall into this risk profile from being tested. Also they have been seen by an ophthalmologist or optometrist within the past 2-4 years, and it is there that their ocular health has been assessed.



How are you able to guarantee the person is (or will be) assessed by an OMD and OD?

----------


## AdmiralKnight

What he's saying is to have the refraction done in the first place, they must have had a health checkup within the past 2-4 years. Presumably varified by a quick call to the office where it was done. After that, it's up to THEM to get them back in for the health check. You can't force people to go. It's up to them.

----------


## mike.elmes

> How are you able to guarantee the person is (or will be) assessed by an OMD and OD?


  The patient signs a form saying that they must have seen an OD/OMD
in the past 2-4 years....it is very clear as to its purpose. Informed consent.

----------


## Excalibur

> What he's saying is to have the refraction done in the first place, they must have had a health checkup within the past 2-4 years. Presumably varified by a quick call to the office where it was done. After that, it's up to THEM to get them back in for the health check. You can't force people to go. It's up to them.


Fair enough. So if this patient/customer's information cannot be verified by a quick call, then the sight test will not be performed?

I don't mean to bust anybody's chops here, and I'm truly sorry if I've offended anyone here but I am very passionate about ensuring that the public be protected. I have not yet been convinced that sight testers have the public's best interest at heart, as I like to think I do in my own practice, however in time I might be.

----------


## mike.elmes

From a completely different standpoint, the Eyelogic system derives a completely reliable, and incredibly accurate final Rx. Better than many of the OMD/OD's in our area. Thus I find the consumer satisfaction to be incredible.

----------


## chip anderson

Excalbur:

Don't know about where you are but here we have a very large segment of the population that would prefer not to be "protected" unless they do so by thier own chosing.
I know this goes against many campaign stratagies but many of us would just like to left the H*ll alone.

Chip

----------


## Excalibur

> From a completely different standpoint, the Eyelogic system derives a completely reliable, and incredibly accurate final Rx. Better than many of the OMD/OD's in our area. Thus I find the consumer satisfaction to be incredible.


The refraction on an Eyelogic may be solid. Maybe. That really doesn't address the safety issue that I keep going back to. How many of these people had an independent site test?

http://www.optometrists.bc.ca/webupl...studies_04.pdf

Were they happy?

----------


## HarryChiling

> The refraction on an Eyelogic may be solid. Maybe. That really doesn't address the safety issue that I keep going back to. How many of these people had an independent site test?
> 
> http://www.optometrists.bc.ca/webupl...studies_04.pdf
> 
> Were they happy?


http://www.optometrists.bc.ca/conten...est/68/11/68/1 (In Context)

That document you keep referenceing is a PR piece.  It is created for the public.  As a doctor you shoudl be able to take one quick glance at it and notice from the ommision of certain data that it is biased.  I would love to discuss that document if we throw the grudge out and look at it more objectively.

----------


## LandLord

Harry, 

Get that haberdasher balderdash out of your name!

Professional titles are synonymous with one specialty or position.

Opthalmologist = eye surgery
Optometrist = eye health
Optician = glasses

For opticianry to die, glasses will have to go first.

----------


## chip anderson

Us old folks in dis country thought it was this way.
Ophthalmologists:  Medicine and Surgery of the eye
Optometrists:       Refraction and optical sales.
Opticians:            Eyeglasses,  Contact lens fitting, prosthetic eyes.

----------


## cvo

Working in the Optical field, one thing i have learned is that the world would be alot better of a  place if all three Os worked together for the better of the public.  Getting rid of attitudes in the optical field like "Excalibur" would do wonders for us all, including this forum!!!!!!!!! 

QUITE STIRRING THE POT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:angry::hammer:

----------


## fjpod

> As revealing as this thread is as to how little respect there is cross-profession in this industry, I honestly think it should be closed. It's been nothing but mudslinging for the past few pages, and while there is truth to both sides of this argument, its obvious that neither side is going to sway the other. This is a professional forum, and a lot of the posts in this thread haven't been anywhere near that caliber. If you really want to have this debate, the PM system would probably be a better bet than this open forum. The public can read this, and it shows badly on the entire Opthalmic community to see such bickering. :\


This is probably the most intelligent post in the whole thread.  I wish the moderators felt the same.

----------


## tmorse

> There must be some Canadian politics going on here, so I will stay out of even though I have an opinion.
> 
> I initial question seems loaded, leading and biased.


I also agree that this thread should now be shut down. 

However it did serve to underscore an important point. And that was the lunacy of the HPRAC recommendation that the College of Opticians of Ontario (COO) invite Optometry into the development of sight-testing protocols for Ontario Opticians. The deleterious effects of this inclusion are now obvious to everyone. It is hoped that this thread will serve to awaken this College's Board from its complacency.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Oedema

> And that was the lunacy of the HPRAC recommendation that the College of Opticians of Ontario (COO) invite Optometry into the development of sight-testing protocols for Ontario Opticians. The deleterious effects of this inclusion are now obvious to everyone. It is hoped that this thread will serve to awaken this College's Board from its complacency.


FYI, optometry was not involved in the drafting of the Ontario refraction standards of practice.

The COO came up with those regulations all on their own.

----------


## tmorse

> FYI, optometry was not involved in the drafting of the Ontario refraction standards of practice. The COO came up with those regulations all on their own.


If so, then Optometry in Ontario has every reason to laugh at Ontario Opticians. Absolutely amazing!!!!:drop:

----------


## Excalibur

> I also agree that this thread should now be shut down. 
> 
> However it did serve to underscore an important point. And that was the lunacy of the HPRAC recommendation that the College of Opticians of Ontario (COO) invite Optometry into the development of sight-testing protocols for Ontario Opticians. The deleterious effects of this inclusion are now obvious to everyone. It is hoped that this thread will serve to awaken this College's Board from its complacency.


I don't believe that the College of Opticians of Ontario had a choice in the matter. Other Colleges, considered as stakeholders by the government, have the right to comment during the development of legislation. When regulation changes requested by optometry were put forth to the government, other professions including opticianry were asked for input too.

----------


## Jim Schafer

> "I have seen the enemy and it is us".


I think this quote came from the Pogo cartoon strip in the newspapers....

Jim

----------


## tmorse

> I don't believe that the College of Opticians of Ontario had a choice in the matter. Other Colleges, considered as stakeholders by the government, have the right to comment during the development of legislation. When regulation changes requested by optometry were put forth to the government, other professions including opticianry were asked for input too.


To quote Mulrooney, "You had a choice, sir." 
Government is obligated to seek stake-holder input as a matter of administrative fairness, plus OD and OMD may have valuable input to offer. However, government has access to its own experts, too. 
The COO had proven BC and Alberta sight-testing models at its disposal... with perhaps only some general COO tweeking required, if at all. But the COO also had the Great Glasses (sight-testing) fall-out fresh in their minds... so who knows. 
In any event, it appears they royally DROPPED THE BALL in this matter. :(

----------


## Excalibur

> To quote Mulrooney, "You had a choice, sir." 
> Government is obligated to seek stake-holder input as a matter of administrative fairness, plus OD and OMD may have valuable input to offer. However, government has access to its own experts, too. 
> The COO had proven BC and Alberta sight-testing models at its disposal... with perhaps only some general COO tweeking required, if at all. But the COO also had the Great Glasses (sight-testing) fall-out fresh in their minds... so who knows. 
> In any event, it appears they royally DROPPED THE BALL in this matter. :(


I certainly am not going to defend the College of Opticians of Ontario, but they have a very big fish to fry, namely a Bergez type of fish. Whether they can chew gum and walk at the same time... I'm not so sure.

----------

