Optometry Discussion Forum

shimsham wrote: I feel that on here there is an attitude that non qualified staff should stick to answering the phone and making appointments

Do you really ? I've always sensed that non-qualified staff are well appreciated on this forum.

As long as no-one pretends otherwise..

shimsham wrote:No, not despise. Just don't believe that letters after a name ensure superior Otherwise, qualifying becomes a, as MTP would call it, "a pissing contest."

Ye gods, I am but crystal!!

I have bided my time and watched this thread with interest (not least because yes could take me so easily!, but I am just a big fearty and I tremble at yes's knees!).

The interesting thing is, I do think that it is a bit like a pissing contest.

One of the people I respect the most in this industry and who I entrust with my business, has absolutely no qualifications to do hee-haw with a lens or a frame in the UK.

So ... where does that leave me?

IMHO?? Nowhere.

In the offending thread we have a guy who has skills who may be of interest to a practice who has now been put off posting again because of the backlash to his original post.

We have a rake of professionals who are up in arms because someone assumed to call themselves something that they are not.

We have a debate about the worth (or not) of a DO.

Actually, you know what, I must procure some Finasteride, that should resolve this dripping contest for those involved!

As far as I can tell, someone posted looking for work. They got it slightly wrong, and admitted their omission and corrected. There was then a whole load of "he said"/"she said" stuff. And, you know, by the way, this happens on these forums (or any forum). Everyone's toys are out of their respective prams ... and ... the world spins on.

I would wager that most of the negative posters weren't interested, in any way, in employing the original deviant. I would wager that the original deviant would not wish to be employed by many of these objectors. You know what, I am fairly certain that most of the readers of this post will wake up again tomorrow to face another day, some might not.

Rule 1 - Don't sweat the small stuff;
Rule 2 - It is all small stuff.

We could all site incidents where all of the boundaries are blurred, we have to take decisions every day and live by them, least of all, I think these people may have something to add.

shimsham wrote: A bit of respect for all who work in the industry is what is called for.

An ironic statement from somebody who has spent the majority of this thread slagging off dispensing opticians.

Can I join in? I don't think shimsham is slagging off all DOs, and in some ways he/she is right about respect for all (on a case by case basis).

I've worked with some great DOs and some rubbish ones, and the same can be said about OAs. One of the great DOs was a horrible person, and one had poor dental hygiene, but they were still good at their job!

As an optom, I'm not too bothered about someone making an error in what they call themselves on here, as long as they're honest in their cv, but I would be bothered about someone misleading the public about their qualifications.

Slightly off topic, I'm not sure these days why anyone worth their salt would want to put themselves through DO (or Optom) training when their future potential earnings would be so much greater in other fields!

shim sham obviously feels that the need for a qualified DO is few and far between and is quite happy to have an unqualified person interpreting and advising his clients from the rx provided by the optom.
I would suggest that the background knowledge in optics and lens design as well as the knowledge to avoid possible pitfalls in the dispensing process that a good DO has would be more advantageous in both professional as well as financial terms in most circumstances.

I am not denigrating OAs, however i would be willing to bet that given the same patients to dispense a good DO would produce more revenue to the prsctice than a good OA.

Surely an OA who has undergone DO training but hasn't taken/passed the exams will have an almost comparable background knowledge!

One OA I once worked with had done three years DO training, and failed some of the exams, then before her retakes, the practice got taken over by someone else who wasn't supportive, so as she suffered terrible exam nerves, she decided not to bother!

Another lady had been quite far through her training when her husband left her with the kids, so she couldn't cope with full time work, looking after her children, studying for exams and trying to rediscover her self esteem, so the DO training went out the window!

Both examples were brilliant dispensers with great knowledge and a fantastic way with people, and brought £££££s in for the practice owners!

FB wrote:Both examples were brilliant dispensers with great knowledge and a fantastic way with people, and brought £££££s in for the practice owners!

And sounds like opticslondon may fall in this category too.

MTP wrote:As far as I can tell, someone posted looking for work. They got it slightly wrong, and admitted their omission and corrected. .

...small quote taken just now from his online CV, there is lots of similar 'pretending to be a D.O' on it...

"EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

***** ******* - Full Time Dispensing Optician – August 2008 – March 2009"

I find this objectionable, and it is a criminal offense to pretend to be a registered optician as far as I understand.

I give in, let the law breakers rule.

seeR39

FB wrote:Surely an OA who has undergone DO training but hasn't taken/passed the exams will have an almost comparable background knowledge!

One OA I once worked with had done three years DO training, and failed some of the exams, then before her retakes, the practice got taken over by someone else who wasn't supportive, so as she suffered terrible exam nerves, she decided not to bother!

Another lady had been quite far through her training when her husband left her with the kids, so she couldn't cope with full time work, looking after her children, studying for exams and trying to rediscover her self esteem, so the DO training went out the window!

Both examples were brilliant dispensers with great knowledge and a fantastic way with people, and brought £££££s in for the practice owners!

passing the exams is the proof you have the background knowledge,if people have gone that far in the process why not just finish the job.

seeR39 wrote:

MTP wrote:As far as I can tell, someone posted looking for work. They got it slightly wrong, and admitted their omission and corrected. .

...small quote taken just now from his online CV, there is lots of similar 'pretending to be a D.O' on it...

"EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

***** ******* - Full Time Dispensing Optician – August 2008 – March 2009"

I find this objectionable, and it is a criminal offense to pretend to be a registered optician as far as I understand.

I give in, let the law breakers rule.

seeR39

Fair comment - you have prompted me to look at the CV and agree that, from a purely legal point of view, he should change the wording, even though he also states that he did not pass the exams. Dispensing Optician is a protected title and he is not entitled to use it.

Dispensing Optician is a protected title and he is not entitled to use it.

and that is the heart of the matter

My apologies, if he hasn't corrected all of his transgressions then he should. Otherwise, I expect nothing less then full criminal proceedings. Can someone please give him a count of three, if he doesn't get it sorted by then then there will be little option but to call the GOC (I bet they have their fingers on the blues and twos button as I type).

the GOC specialize in number twos.