 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2005Prescription error?
I had an eyetest yesterday, and the practitioner at the end told me that there was "no real change in my prescription". I asked him if it's *exactly* the same as my previous one, and he said "just a fraction more myopia in your left eye" which I would agree with as it's not quite a sharp for distance with my existing glasses as my right eye is. He gave me my new prescription and I ordered some new glasses, mainly because I saw some frames which looked better than my existing ones! The next day I thought I'd compare the prescription with my 2 previous ones: 8/jan/2000 Right: -2.50 sph, -1.75 cyl (axis 180) Left: -3.25 sph, -1.25 cyl (axis 5) 24/may/2003 Right: -2.25 sph, -1.75 cyl (axis 180) Left: -3.25 sph, -1.00 cyl (axis 180) 5/mar/2005 Right: -3.50 sph, -1.75 cyl (axis 180) Left: -3.75 sph, -1.00 cyl (axis 180) Looking at yesterday's reading I'm almost *certain* that there is a mistake with the -3.50 sph right eye figure! Lets face it, if this figure were correct then I would have very blurred right eye distance vision with my 2 year old specs. I've dug out my 5 year old specs and my right eye distance vision is pretty well spot on with those, so I'm almost certain that he put -3.50 sph when he meant to put -2.50 sph. Does this type of error often happen, as I don't wish to complain only to be told these are the lenses *I* said gave best vison on the eyechart test? While he was doing the test he was writing the figures by hand on my record sheet which then get transferred to their computer to produce the printed prescription, and I'm not sure if this is normally done by the practitioner, or given to some "junior" to punch in. I phoned the optician to ask if they can check the handwritten notes, but they said I would need to come in on Tuesday and see the practitioner, which seems a bit of an inconvenience, but this got me thinking that with something this important then it should surely be double and triple checked! Let's say someone had booked a lasik treatment and ended up with a dioptre overcorrection (ouch)! I got a prescription with -1.00 more in each eye, I know that was wrong.Eye doctors are not gods or angels.They only think they are . In the presence of the truth about vision, they are just idiots. The writer Mr. Adrian does not understand that refraction changes and in different situations the patient may show different numbers. For this, reliable measurings are impossible. If a measure changes, strangely to say, the doctors say that the eye shifted. If you ask, please teach me how to shift the eye to normal, they say IT'S IMPOSSIBLE, THE EYE DOES NOT CHANGE SHAPE. And you still trust these people? Rishi! Venuto alla tabella! Il vostro pranzo sta ottenendo il freddo. Amore, la vostra madre. ----------------------- Rishi, come to the table. Your dinner is getting cold. Love, your mother. > Rishi! Venuto alla tabella! Il vostro pranzo sta ottenendo il > freddo. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Love, your mother. I appreciate your effortsd, thanks. Just today a client of 21 years old who is under self-treatment since one year for a myopic condition of -4 each eye has phoned me screaming that he can now see and drie at night looking at road signs. HE was excited and really very much out of his senses. What he found strange is that now that he could look in the distance with almost clear vision, the near vision was blurry. So what? Simply the eyes shifted from a strain to see in the distance to a strain to see near. Now he was going on the freeway to see if this very good night eyesight was to desappear or not. Then he stopped at a gas station and entered a bar to have something to eat, and he focussed very easily the list at the wall, the one which is retro-illuminated. But he found difficult to read the "casio" little letters on his wristwatch. Eventually he relaxed and the near vision returned to normal. He did not lose the vision for the distance, though. These are clear indications that Dr. Bates was right and you all are wrong. http://TheCentralFixation.com Rishi, A couple of quick things: 1) I suppose the bar for "proof" should be lower for you than for the rest of the scientific community because you want it to be? Seems a little narcissistic and self-serving, don't you think? 2) In the wake of recent events (Aleve, Vioxx, Celebrex, Tysabri, etc.) I'm reminded that scientific hypotheses should be held to the highest of scrutiny before being labeled as "safe," "accurate," "state-of-the-art," or "conventional wisdom." Reach for it, Mister. It's up there for you to surmount. Time and time again, you eagerly and blithely foist your theories on unsuspecting folks who stop by S.M.V. looking for help. The general public must rely on the kindly doctors to alert them to your lack of credentials, potential for harm, and untested hypotheses. Look, Rishi, I'll allow for the possibility that all of the eye doctors on this NG are avaricious, self-serving monsters who have a lock on a huge chunk of change that comes from doing things "their" way. They may be a member of the vast ocular conspiracy that defends its wealth by maintaining the status quo. All of this may be true (though I don't think it is). But you still come across as a petulant, Napoleonic idiot. The bar for proving your theories is the same as it is for all others. Go prove your theories (yes, the old fashioned way: proper testing, accurate data, peer-review) and -- if there's a kernel of truth in what you spout -- converts will be lining up to describe and prescribe your methods, you'll be rich, and you'll be right up there with Bagolini, Helmholz, Donders, Schirmer, Robert A. Strabismus, and all the other paragons whose names are memorialized in the annals of vision care. Until then, you're an intellectually inadequate troll . . . who creates risk for unsuspecting, often desperate, people seeking help. Neil >I got a prescription with -1.00 more in each eye, I know that was > wrong.Eye doctors are not gods or angels.They only think they are . Yes, but if you got a prescription with -1.00 more, it usually means you told the eye doctor that one step less was blurry. If we were gods or angels we wouldn't have to ask. -MT >> I got a prescription with -1.00 more in each eye, I know that was >> wrong.Eye doctors are not gods or angels.They only think they are . > > Yes, but if you got a prescription with -1.00 more, it usually means > you told the eye doctor that one step less was blurry. A "step" is 0.25D, so you mean *four* steps. > A "step" is 0.25D, so you mean *four* steps. Absolutely not. Heynita chose the endpoint by telling the doctor that 0.25 less minus was blurry. That new endpoint happened to be four quarters more myopic than the endpoint she (he?) chose last time. The endpoint (final sphere value) is the minimum amount of minus necessary to clear a target at 20 feet. At that point, more minus won't improve measured acuity and LESS MINUS WILL BE BLURRY. Everyone has such a point, plus OR minus, but some refractionists are better than others at coaching these decisions from people. Every time I finish a myope's refraction, I make them tell me that ONE STEP LESS IS BLURRY. If they come back having problems, it isn't because I "wrote the prescription too strong." There are plenty of reasons for variation, but it's sufficient to know that some variations are beyond control and all you can do is trust the patient not to lie when they say ONE STEP LESS IS BLURRY. -MT This is all wrong, these numbers make no sense. Study the true cure and heal yourself without glasses. Stop following these wrong theories against every truth ou may witness easily in your own case. > > A "step" is 0.25D, so you mean *four* steps. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The endpoint (final sphere value) is the minimum amount of minus necessary > to clear a target at 20 feet. At that point, more minus won't improve > measured acuity and LESS MINUS WILL BE BLURRY. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it's sufficient to know that some variations are beyond control and all you > can do is trust the patient not to lie when they say ONE STEP LESS IS > BLURRY. > > -MT I asked for weaker glasses and to spite me he gave me stronger ones. I didnt ask for stronger ones.The eye doctors are all in it togetter to keep glasses on every one so they can keep buying there new cars. > I asked for weaker glasses and to spite me he gave me stronger ones. I > didnt ask for stronger ones.The eye doctors are all in it togetter to > keep glasses on every one so they can keep buying there new cars. Not my fault you're driving a 20 yr old Yugo and mine is a 2005 Mercedes turbo. Seriously, the provider gave you the correct prescription for optimum vision. S/he didn't do anything to "spite" you. I've personally cut minus at times (especially instances of early presbyopes to help them at near) for patients but not to the extent of blurring them out at distance. Your attitude is truly cynical with the old worn out collusion/ conspiracy theories. frank > I had an eyetest yesterday, and the practitioner at the end told me that > there was "no real change in my prescription". I asked him if it's [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Let's say someone had booked a lasik treatment and ended up with a dioptre > overcorrection (ouch)! Dr's seem to pride themselves in how sloppy their handwriting is, and sometimes they (or their staff) cannot even read it correctly. The number of people who have died or been seriously injured by drug Rx mistakes is staggering. Most likely, the OD is going to have to double check your vision to make sure he knows what the correct values are, so it is best to come back in. You should not have to pay extra for this. I've begun to think that there should be some device that can see the exact prescription you need. That 'which is better - one or two' test is very difficult for a person (me) to take - and the wrong decision causes you to end up with the wrong prescription. The test goes on for 1 quick minute - and you feel pressured to hurry up and decide. > I've begun to think that there should be some device that can see the > exact prescription you need. That 'which is better - one or two' > test is very difficult for a person (me) to take - and the wrong > decision causes you to end up with the wrong prescription. The test > goes on for 1 quick minute - and you feel pressured to hurry up and > decide. You need to find another OD. Try to find one that is not always booked. But any OD should give you a lot more than 1 minute. > I've begun to think that there should be some device that can see the > exact prescription you need. That 'which is better - one or two' > test is very difficult for a person (me) to take - and the wrong > decision causes you to end up with the wrong prescription. The test > goes on for 1 quick minute - and you feel pressured to hurry up and > decide. Some refractionists are better than others at coaching these responses. The difficulty often arises because the instructions suck. It helps to know there's a point where "one or two" look just the same and that's important for the doctor to know there's no discernable difference. Sometimes it actually helps to work quickly. Studying and pondering each choice can easily lead you astray. It's your first impression that counts. -MT All prescriptions are wrong. It's so clear! How cannot you not see this, it's really incredible! Perhaps you are an idiot? and realize that when the lines you are looking during the refraction get very small, it's normal for them to be hard to see. For example-- when you get to a 20/20 line, it is barely detectable by a human eye. Thats normal. Some patients just clam-up and refuse to read any letters when they get that small even though they can actually barely make them out. The bottom line-- please give your best guesses on the letters even though they might be hard to see. And like MT said, its best if you don't study the letters but go with your first impression. > I've begun to think that there should be some device that can see the > exact prescription you need. That 'which is better - one or two' > test is very difficult for a person (me) to take - and the wrong > decision causes you to end up with the wrong prescription. The test > goes on for 1 quick minute - and you feel pressured to hurry up and > decide. > and realize that when the lines you are looking during the refraction get > very small, it's normal for them to be hard to see. For example-- when you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > they might be hard to see. And like MT said, its best if you don't study > the letters but go with your first impression. Is there generally any difference when a 'Tumbling E' chart is used? I figured if I wanted to test my eyes rather than my brain the E chart would be better, but the result was the same.  SignatureCheers, Bev +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Little Mary took her skis upon the snow to frisk. Wasn't she a silly girl her little * ? > Is there generally any difference when a 'Tumbling E' chart is used? No, even then some persons refuse to point out the direction of the legs being afraid to make a "mistake'' I am used to pull the answers out and for that reason I sit in front of the victim with a whip in one of my hands. More seriously, I try in many different (polite) ways to get the answers out. SignatureJan (normally Dutch spoken) > "The Real Bev" <bashley@myrealbox.com> schreef: > > > Is there generally any difference when a 'Tumbling E' chart is used? > > No, even then some persons refuse to point out the direction of the legs > being afraid to make a "mistake'' Really? People are afraid to guess wrong ON AN EYE CHART? Lordy. > I am used to pull the answers out and for that reason I sit in front of the > victim with a whip in one of my hands. > > More seriously, I try in many different (polite) ways to get the answers > out. Long ago an optometrist really botched the lenses. When I went back to have him check the lenses/re-test my eyes he accused me of lying on the test. He couldn't explain to me why I might have wanted to do such a thing, but he ended up giving me my money back. SignatureCheers, Bev ********************************************************* Warning: Objects in mirror appear smarter than they are. There is generally little difference between a tumbling E acuity and a Snellen acuity. Tumbling E is used in children who don't know their letters very well and for illiterates (no jab at you intended). ----------- >> and realize that when the lines you are looking during the refraction get >> very small, it's normal for them to be hard to see. For example-- when [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > figured if I wanted to test my eyes rather than my brain the E chart > would be better, but the result was the same. It's all wrong. Drop all this nonsense. > I had an eyetest yesterday, and the practitioner at the end told me that > there was "no real change in my prescription". I asked him if it's [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Let's say someone had booked a lasik treatment and ended up with a dioptre > overcorrection (ouch)! I think you're right - from what you've said, it does sound as if there could be a mistake with transcribing the right eye prescription. Mistakes can happen. It may have been at the initial transcribing from the testing equipment onto paper that the mistake was made. This would explain why they need you to come in again, as currently the handwritten notes would match your printed prescription. If you were having lasik they wouldn't just rely on one measurement like this. The reason it's not 'triple-checked' is because (1) mistakes are rare, and (2) the consequences of a mistake are an inconvenience but not sight-threatening. I wonder if you've collected your new specs yet... it sounds like they may need to be changed under warranty... Dom > If you were having lasik they wouldn't just rely on one measurement like > this. The reason it's not 'triple-checked' is because (1) mistakes are > rare, and (2) the consequences of a mistake are an inconvenience but not > sight-threatening. Ask to the people who had the misfortune to follow your line of reasoning. > I think you're right - from what you've said, it does sound as if > there could be a mistake with transcribing the right eye prescription. They just phoned me to say that they have checked the handwritten notes and it *is* -2.5 sph (right eye) rather than -3.5, so looks like a keying error. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.