who would i complain to ?

CrazyNerd

wouldn't there be a reading add?

nedmundo

aheaton46 wrote: »

Love the way some people seem to think the Asda optician was correct, no matter how implausible that would be.

If you've complained to Asda and got nowhere, you may want to make a formal complaint about the optician to the General Optical Council.
http://www.optical.org/en/our_work/Investigating_complaints/How_to_make_a_complaint/index.cfm

How do you know it's implausible? Best make sure before potentially ruining an innocent life and reputation, through having them investigated?

nedmundo

CrazyNerd wrote: »

wouldn't there be a reading add?

I think the cyl+2.00 bit probably was a typo ADD.

twinkle1981_2

Is the +2.00 the reading add?

twinkle1981_2

If this has been written in plus cyl form it would then be transposed as +2.50 sph, -2.00 cyl. But where is the axis from the second prescription. ? If there is a cyl there must be an axis. And if there is no reading add then it cant be a varifocal prescription.

System

nedmundo wrote: »

OK - well if I'm reading this right, then the distance portion on both prescriptions is very similar and not very significant. If I saw an asymptomatic patient with that prescription, then I wouldn't be prescribing that either.

What does concern me is that by your own implication she was asymptomatic 1st time around and then developed symptoms a few months later and a loss of accommodation was found at the second test, requiring some help with reading focus. If that accommodative loss was present at the 1st test, then she would have had symptoms then. There is no way not prescribing specs at the 1st appointment would have led to this deterioration in vision.

So was the reason for this loss of accommodation investigated? In my experience, it could be psychological, neuroligical or just plain fatigue(illness, medication, sudden increase in workload at school....).

Complaining about the 1st test will get you nowhere. I don't think Asda have done anything wrong either.

im not sure i understand quite what you are saying but untill after the 1st test she wore glasses all the time so there were no problems ,the problems started a short while after she stopped wearing the glasses .

System

twinkle1981 wrote: »

If this has been written in plus cyl form it would then be transposed as +2.50 sph, -2.00 cyl. But where is the axis from the second prescription. ? If there is a cyl there must be an axis. And if there is no reading add then it cant be a varifocal prescription.

she has varifocals i know that for a fact ! they have made things much better and i will be escalating this issue as i do feel the asda optician was wrong.

System

nedmundo wrote: »

How do you know it's implausible? Best make sure before potentially ruining an innocent life and reputation, through having them investigated?

if they are investigated and believe they have done everything right then wheres the problem ,i believe they were wrong and i have downloaded the relevant form to complain.

Emmzi

with an eye test a lot of it is the person saying "clearer" and reading letters etc.

Now *I* can't always tell what is clearer and brighter etc. So I have to ask a few times to see some of the things I am comparing. As for a lot of the test the optician depends on what the patient is telling them, is it possible daughter was in a non-precise or off mood?

Just suggesting more than one person may be at fault here and it's not worth tearing someone off a strip!

System

i understand what you are saying and if you knew dd you would understand because everything is black + white to her something is either clear or it isnt theres never any grey areas.