Job Board

shimsham · Post by **shimsham** » Mon May 11, 2009 2:36 pm

Professional what? Professional shop assistant? Who cares any more, since deregulation the DO role has less and less value. Clinical observance can be monitored by the Optom. What is more important to employers is sales and ability to do adjustments, repairs etc. I have had to put up with enough DOs who seem to think that selling is beneath them yet want to be paid a fortune! Some who won't even answer the phone, that is for receptionists to do apparently! As for all the hard work DOs do re CET etc. I remember when CET came in for Optoms and the more vocal DOs cried in the Optician magazine "What about us?!" well you got what you asked for and now you can feel important again but most employers will still take experience over qualification and most Optoms don't really care.

afb · Post by **afb** » Mon May 11, 2009 2:59 pm

i understand where you're coming from but a DO is a professional - they shouldn't have that undermined or taken from them. Secondly, while we all know the business works around spec sales (in most cases), having someone who does their best for the patient, that may or may not coincide with a practices sales targets or whatever, surely must be the mark of a professional. Depending on what you want from your business and staff may depend on which way you want to go on employing your staff - and equally a lot of the qualities of a good DO can be found in good OAs (and vice versa?) but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a distinction between them.

Ant Blackman · Post by **Ant Blackman** » Mon May 11, 2009 3:58 pm

experience over qualification

I'm sure that same could be said about some Optoms!

DG · Post by DG » Mon May 11, 2009 4:05 pm

What a depressingly low opinion and lack of respect some optoms have for the role and contribution made to their profession by dispensing opticians.

Would it be equally acceptable for somebody without the necessary professional qualification to pass themselves off as a lawyer, a doctor or an optometrist? However much you might elevate these occupations in relation to the role of a DO, the principle and the injustice of it is the same.

afb - thanks for your support.

Steve Mayer · Post by **Steve Mayer** » Mon May 11, 2009 4:24 pm

I insist on having a qualified, registered DO working full time if I possibly can. I even pay their GOC fees. I check their registration on the GOC site before considering an interview.

I do not like using locums at all, whether qualified or not.

The forum works fine as it is (mostly). I don't think there is any need to change anything at the moment.

shimsham · Post by **shimsham** » Mon May 11, 2009 4:29 pm

Afb, thanks for your moderate and considered reply. I'll take it on board.

Ant, not so, qualification is necessary to perform the duties of an optom, but optical assistants once trained are perfectly capable of performing the duties of a DO save for some extreme and not very common circumstances.

DG, I am not an optom.

Overall I would say that the DO qualification is a great way to train expertly and to formalise the way we can judge your level of skill/knowledge but it is not that important and the way a lot of DOs wave their FODO plaques around you'd think they were Nobel prize winners.

yes · Post by **yes** » Mon May 11, 2009 4:57 pm

DG wrote:What a depressingly low opinion and lack of respect some optoms have for the role and contribution made to their profession by dispensing opticians.

I disagree. This thread originated from the depressingly low opinion and lack of respect some qualified members have for the role and contribution made by unqualified staff.

seeR39 · Post by **seeR39** » Mon May 11, 2009 10:33 pm

yes wrote:
DG wrote:What a depressingly low opinion and lack of respect some optoms have for the role and contribution made to their profession by dispensing opticians.
I disagree. This thread originated from the depressingly low opinion and lack of respect some qualified members have for the role and contribution made by unqualified staff.

Oh come on yes, how ridiculous.

Calling oneself a D.O. when you are not is a criminal offense. That is what started this thread, nothing else!

Seeing how you rant about speccies being bad for optics, how can you 'approve' of actions which are illegal and can cause patient harm?

I fully respect non-registered members of my teams, most of them are wonderful.

If one of them told the punters, or told other staff, that they were a dispensing optician then they would likely be sacked for gross misconduct.

seeR39

Ant Blackman · Post by **Ant Blackman** » Mon May 11, 2009 10:36 pm

Ant, not so, qualification is necessary to perform the duties of an optom, but optical assistants once trained are perfectly capable of performing the duties of a DO save for some extreme and not very common circumstances

Really? I know how to use a retinoscope & slit-lamp, so in theory anyone who practices enough with the equipment could perform the duties of an optom without being qualified, just experienced.

Humspoff · Post by **Humspoff** » Mon May 11, 2009 10:46 pm

In theory yes Ant, but you would get a major telling off from the GOC!!!

seeR39 · Post by **seeR39** » Mon May 11, 2009 10:52 pm

Humspoff wrote:In theory yes Ant, but you would get a major telling off from the GOC!!!

...but if yes was on the panel you would get off scot free.

seeR39

Ant Blackman · Post by **Ant Blackman** » Mon May 11, 2009 10:52 pm

True, but then it might take a while if I say my GOC number is Jan-08 like some people got!!!!

The main point is that in all 'professions' there are cowboys who pretend and get away with it; whether it is impersonating a DO or a lawyer etc

shimsham · Post by **shimsham** » Mon May 11, 2009 10:53 pm

Ant, an optical assistant can, perfectly legally, dispense all but complex rx wearers and under 16 year olds. You cannot legally do ret or use a slit lamp as part of an eye test. If I have a practice and get the optom to do ocs on the above, where is the illegal action?

Ant Blackman · Post by **Ant Blackman** » Mon May 11, 2009 10:56 pm

& there was me thinking this all started over someone claiming to be a DO when they were not qualified!!!

shimsham · Post by **shimsham** » Mon May 11, 2009 11:02 pm

I think it was unfortunate and naive for him to use the term DO but I think he is of the opinion that his experience makes him comparable to a DO which in practical skills I bet he is. I agree that he should stop using that term to describe his position but perhaps a good humoured and gentle reminder to him would have sufficed rather than a witch hunt.