Talk:Optometry/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Article Improvement Drive

Contact lens is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Please support the article with your vote. --Fenice 10:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"Optometrysucks" Yahoo group

I didn't put the link in originally. 70.176.93.225 removed it with the comment "Removed discouraging Yahoo messageboard link." I've put it back, editing the link and description to make it clearer.

The fact that it is "discouraging" is not a reason for removing it. Wikipedia does not have any mission of promoting optometry or presenting only positive aspects.

I peeked into this group and it seems like a fairly reasonable discussion group, and one anyone intending to pursue a career in optometry would be well advised to glance at. Obviously it is presenting a non-neutral point of view, but that doesn't matter if the overall content of the article and the links section is well-balanced.

I rather think this is a valuable link that should remain in the article. Comments? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "discouraging" is not a reason for removing it, however, this one should not be here. Per WP:EL's "Links to normally avoid": "forums should generally not be linked to". The term "generally" does provide for exceptions "if the website is of particularly high standard". I would argue that a forum that has been around for 3.5 years but has averaged 1.1 posts per day for 2006 does not fit the bill. I also think that any forum that requires a person to reveal personal information or an e-mail address (i.e. requires sign-up) to view the information is not appropriate and may violate the first rule of WP:EL, "Is it accessible?". Given that WP:EL suggests that the EL section should contain "[s]ites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article" and avoid "[a]ny site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research", this lack of accessibility makes it difficult to verify those things. -AED 21:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with AED. This forum, and forums in general, don't offer much valuable information. According to the External links page referred to above, forums are listed under "links to normally avoid". What should be linked to are "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article". I propose eliminating this link and replacing it with a link to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics page on optometry (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos073.htm). This is a neutral, objective site that provides far more valuable information about the career aspects of optometry. Eli6 20:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


Behavioural optometrists?

Yes.

Those calling themselves "behavioural optometrist" often consider themselves to practice general optometry plus armed with a few extra skills. Also legally in Australia/US you need further qualifications to call yourself "behavioural" optometrist - ie considered a sub-specialty. s

Perhaps only a "link" should be mentioned - pointing to the wiki on Behavioural optometry

Should this article mention behavioural optometrists (sp?) - thats what I was hoping to find informtion about. Cached 09:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Scholarly SPAM?

Question: Does this articel benefit from the laundry list of all the different schools that have legit optometric programs? Couldn't we just have a category for such institutions and link to IT from the "See also" section? 68.39.174.238 09:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Similar to List of medical schools, the section has grown enough that it's probably about time to fork to List of optometry schools. -AED 15:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It reads more like a yellowpages ad.203.109.223.97 03:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional information required

In addition with the above suggested change (which i fully support), perhaps more information on the history of the profession, and broadened information on the scope of practice in various countries, as it varies quite markedly. I would be happy to begin these additions if agreed.

Suggested Updates:

  • History
  • Scope of practice
  • Behavioural optom

Fillup 07:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. Keep in mind that there is already an article entitled "Behavioral optometry", but it could use some expanding, too. -AED 16:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Topics to Improve Article

1) I think something pertaining to 'how' optometrists practice is much needed. Information on private vs. group vs. commercial practicing would really add to the article.--Macs3 18:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC) 2) There appears to be a dispute between whether optometrist training is just like ophthalmologists or not. This has the potential to become heated. The topic of whether Taiwan legitimately claims China or whether China legitimately claims Taiwan is another hot issue. Maybe we should look toward that article to see how it's solved. [[1]]. Maybe we should have a section stating that there has been a continual debate and to give more info rather than have one side edit that the 2 are practically the same and another side saying they are vastly different? I think the ophthalmology residency is far more rigourous than optometry school but that optometry school really gives good training in contact lenses.VK35 20:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not refuting the length and difficulty of ophthalmology residencies, nor am I comparing their residency to an optometrist's residency. The dispute isn't the length of training, it's the curriculum during OD or MD school that possesses similarities. I'm not going to let an article read that optometrists "have really good training in contact lenses." You're missing half the debate. It's not about glasses and contact lenses for optometrists anymore, that is the bottom line. We need to start incorporating that into the article because that is where the future of optometry is going. Again, enough with the concerns on what is more difficult or who's residency holds more credibility. That is how debates get heated; comments like those. In my opinion, the article reads well concerning the differences and similarities between ODs/MDs. Lets leave it at that; we need to expand on ODs since this is an Optometry article. Let's get other ideas on how to expand the article...ie. optometric practicing, more specifics on sub-specialties, etc. We need to throw the OD vs. MD debate away. I think it's taken care of; the article flows well and doesn't ever say an optometrist is an ophthalmologist, or even close to. When I say "similar basic science training" you cannot refute that comment. It is true, end of statement. There is much more to the education than that, but we can't timeline each program and state all the differences between each year of school. That's nonsense. Let us move on.--Macs3 22:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome, new user Macs3 to wikipedia! It's you're first day here! "We need to start incorporating that into the article because that is where the future of optometry is going"....wrote Macs3. WP:ATT shown here [[2]] can be a humbug! Predicting the future may be contrary to policy. I think American optometrists' future is bigger than that (Lasik, cosmetic breast enlargement, and liposuction). I don't think that will happen in Singapore, though. Even if it's true about your predictions of optometry's future, reliable sources are needed for inclusion into wikipedia. Since you're new, you may not have yet experienced the humbug of some of wikipedia rules, like no original research, NPOV, SSP, RFCU, etc.
One trouble with comparing schools and not residencies is that some uninformed think that medical school trains doctors when, in fact, residencies and fellowships are far lengthier than medical schools.VK35 22:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree to some extent. The prototypical MD residency lasts anywhere from 2-4 years post med school. Most highly invasive surgeons (ie. cardio, neuro, etc) will have residencies lasting up to 6 years at the most. There's no reason to compare residencies though when it comes to Optometry, because as of this moment, it doesn't play as pivotal a role. There's no fault in basing predictions for future events off of what happens in the past. "Reliable sources" make these predictions all time, that's where they originate. They aren't conjured out of thin air. Educated assumptions tend to fall into place more than not.--Macs3 04:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S., the shortest residency is 3 years (pediatrics and family practice). There are no 2 year residencies. Ophthalmology is 4 years. I have heard of 7 year general surgery residencies. Fellowships in some fields of medicine (after residency) are often 2 years, though there is the rare 4 year fellowship. In Singapore, more people receive their training in the UK, which tends to have longer residencies than in the U.S. Therefore, your contention of a 2 year residency is incorrect and 6 year residency "at the most" is also incorrect. There is reason to compare ophthalmology and optometry residencies because medical school is only a small part of an ophthalmologist training. That would be like saying you and I have the same high school training. You are a special forces commando. Therefore, my training is almost like yours, at least the high school part. Maybe true, but potentially misleading the reader (even if done unintentionally).
Perhaps the best way to present the article is simply to state the educational background of American, British, French, and other optometrists and to have a small section on controversies relating to ophthalmology. I'm sure it can be written in a fair and NPOV way. Other bigger controversies have existed in wikipedia. VK35 16:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm done with this; this is absurd. I don't mean to get heated, but you don't know what you're talking about. Basically every rebuttal of yours is skewed and nowhere near correct with little to no coherency. Get your facts before you present them; consider this the end of this topic. Take time and try to think of a coherent statement that can be justifiably used for the article and quit wasting time with this. --Macs3 23:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

1. what, praytell, is a "highly invasive surgeon?" that seems like a nonsensical term to me.

2. there are absolutely no two year residencies in the U.S.

3. U.S. residencies range from three to six years. period.

4. there are no general surgery residencies that last seven years. now, some general surgery residents will take time during their residency to do research, sometimes for two years or more, but that should not be counted as part of the length of the actual residency training.

5. there are no "cardio surgery" residencies. cardiothoracic surgery is a subspecialty of general surgery. Desert boy 05:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There are no citations under the heading US Politics. For example "many minor and important surgeries that Optometrists are trained to perform" justifies citation considering the article states Ophthalmologist perform surgery. What important surgeries are part of the Optometry curriculum, or are these available as courses outside of basic curriculum? DonnyG (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed NPOV

"Despite this disparity in medical training, the optometrist lobby continues to use political pressure to advance their scope of practice." Give me a break. Does this sound like NPOV? This section might add value to this article, but only if it is re-written to meet NPOV standards. Eli6 23:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is NPOV to state that "the optometrist lobby continues to use political pressure to advance their scope of practice." This is a fact. It is a fact that there is a disparity in medical training. Putting the two together in the same sentence will probably make some people upset.

I see both an optometrist and ophthalmologists. I see an optometrist for contact lenses and an ophthalmologist for my advanced glaucoma. Neither are bad or stupid people.A880M 22:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't argue that a statement has a neutral point of view because it contains facts. Facts and neutrality are two different things. The sentence was written with an obvious bias, and inferred that optometrists have insufficient training to expand their scope of practice. That is an opinion, not a fact. Both sides to an argument use facts to support their opinions. Another factual, but biased statement might be: "Despite the training that optometrists go through to get a Doctor of Optometry degree, the powerful lobbyists of organized medicine are using political pressure to prevent trained eye doctors from administering care to patients." Neither statement contains fictitious information, but both are biased.Eli6 22:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Disparity in medical training". This is a true statement, whether in Singapore, US, UK, etc. "Optometrist lobby continues to use political pressure to advance their scope of practice." In the US, this is very true such as currently in New Mexico and other states and largely successful in the State of Oklahoma. Someone should consider rewritting the ideas, but not censor them. There is a NPOV way of conveying this information.VK35 20:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Corrected wrong information about optometry schools being similar to medical schools. In Singapore, optometrists are trained overseas, occasionally in the US. Our information is that unlike medical schools, optometry schools have few hospital rotations, don't have surgical training, have far less basic science training, no medical (general medical, surgical, and other) clerkships. To compare optometry schools as being similar to medical schools is deceptive and wrong information. Optometry schools have good training in optics and contact lenses.VK35 16:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

To set the record, Optometry school can most undoubtedly be considered 'similar' to medical school. The information in the paragraph above is invalid. Certain optometry, medical and dental programs are actually incorporated into each other. In these programs, students from each background take certain classes together and get similar training in general fields of study. Optometry schools require hospital rotations, and if desired by the student, these rotations can encompass a significant portion of their training. Again, to address your invalid statements above, optometrists do not have surgical training, but not all MDs are surgeons and receive surgical training; it depends on specialties. As far as basic science training -MD students and OD students take very similar training courses in sciences, such as anatomy, physiology, etc. Obviously, certain elements are emphasized in each program. Optometry schools are no longer restricted to just optics and contact lenses. Diagnosing, treatment, and management of diseases are all elements of an optometrist's work. The information above is considerably obsolete. PLEASE DO NOT ERADICATE information presenting the similarities between optometry and medical school. It's necessary to separate information regarding optometrists and ophthalmologists. This is an important topic that befuddles many people and can be resolved by stating the similarities and differences. Never will anything be listed describing medical school and optometry school as the same. 00:02, 28 April 2007

If there is no unbiased source saying that optometry schools are similar to medical school then it is unattributable and doesn't belong in wikipedia. Don't blame me as I would like to do some original research on other topics. I checked the websites and curriculum of OHSU and PUCOM, both in Oregon and I find the curriculum not the same. Even the basic sciences are not the same. Maybe the next project would be to compare curriculums between NOVA and University of Miami? In Singapore, people do not laugh at optometrists. They are just different professions, not stupid people. In Singapore, there was a hit film "I not stupid" but it didn't have anything to do with optometry.VK35 05:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Optometrists don't go to Optometry school INSTEAD of medical school. That is an extremely poor sentence and needs to be revamped. I don't know where you get your info from but it is again, way off. Medical school curriculum from various schools: anatomy, physio, histology, biochem, embryology, neuroanatomy, pathology, pharmacology, microbio, immunology. EVERY single one of those classes can be seen on various optometry curriculums. Now, I'm not going to play a childish game of back and forth. Get your facts straight before you alter the information. I'm not saying the two occupations are the same, I don't want to, they are different, but in certain aspects the same. Each is better in it's own way in various details. What is with Singapore? Please do not alter this information, you seem to be out of your element. I have friends in both med and opt schools; I think I'm a fairly credible source.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 3tanman3 (talk • contribs)

I've made a few edits to the first paragraph of that section. -- LukeSurl t c 13:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Where you consider the content to be dubious or otherwise in need of citation, please mark with the {{cn}} tag. Wikipedia strives to have all its content to be verifiable by Reliable sources, which in this case will mean primarily websites and publications by professional bodies. Unfortionately as much as you may be justified in saying I think I'm a fairly credible source, there is no way of encyclopedically verifying that (see Wikipedia:No_original_research. LukeSurl t c 15:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I know something about Singapore which is why I mention it (addressing 3Stanman3). Does this help anyone? The optometry link is one of the citations in the article that somebody else put in. It shows NSU (optometry school) has 1 year of basic sciences. [[3]] The University of South Florida College of Medicine (medical school) lists 2 years of basic sciences [[4]] That's double the length. I looked at the University of Alabama website. They have a medical school, an optometry school, and a dental school in the same campus. The 3 school's websites don't say that optometry school students attend medical school basic sciences classes. The curriculum of dental school and medical school seems to be somewhat similar in the first 2 years but optometry school seems to be different. Is there any source that says it's the same? I don't think any is saying that optometry schools are no good. Can we agree on that?VK35 17:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you who's better..I want to simply state the similarities and differences and present them in a manner that clearly distinguishes. My friend actually goes to Nova and takes courses with the dental and medical students. Towards the end of certain courses (ie. last chapters), such as anatomy, the professor will stress certain topics that will be emphasized in the dental, med or optometry exams. They are predominantly the same course, with only slightly different emphasis on each program's exam. Looking at Nova's curriculum, I can clearly see two years of sciences at Nova; one for basic and one more emphasized-based the second year. That is how each medical school curriculum is as well. You cannot take two full years (4 semesters) of 'basic' sciences. That would defeat the use of the word 'basic'. Each medical and optometry school progressively narrows down the topics in the science courses pertaining to the aforementioned programs. (ie. ocular pharmacology vs. medical pharmacology) I'm legitimate in what I'm talking about because I'm knowledgeable in each field. I think being knowledgeable in something is enough, it doesn't need to be 'encyclopedially' verified. WIKIpedia is NOT an ENCYCLOpedia; that's the beauty of it.--Macs3 18:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that in the United States, optometrists try to do more of what ophthalmologists traditionally have done (first medication, later laser surgery in Oklahoma, etc.) The political steps to get the rights to do more have been justified by contending that optometrists are almost the same as ophthalmologists (or saying optometry school is just like medical school). Therefore, any attempts to use similar language will probably be viewed with suspicion when incorporated into wikipedia or other printed source. This is the reality of the situation and an analysis, not commentary to whether it's good or bad. I never have heard of ophthalmologists saying that their training is just like or just as good as optometrists.

In Singapore, there is not so much of a dispute between optometrists and ophthalmologists. I have used both of them.VK35 20:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement "Each medical and optometry school progressively narrows down the topics in the science courses pertaining to the aforementioned programs. (ie. ocular pharmacology vs. medical pharmacology)" is not true of any medical school I am aware of. The two basic science years are shared amongst ALL medical students. *Some* flexibility is available in the last two clinical years for focus in specialty interest, but even in clinical years a medical student interested in Orthopedic surgery is still REQUIRED to serve clinical rotations in Internal Medicine, Pediatrics, OB/GYN, General Surgery, Family Medicine, Psychiatry, etc. Residencies following medical schools are where most of the specialization occurs. DonnyG (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Scope of practice suggestion

true!

Should this section claim that ODs "are experts," "counsel," "refer," etc., or state that is what they "may" or "should" be and do? Not all ODs are expert refractionists, for example. It's a small point, but changing the semantics might make the tone less strident. (The vision therapy article seems to have struck a balanced tone in what could have been an ongoing battleground.) IMHO PedEye1 02:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Also: the links for optometric subspecialties link to non-optometric topics. Either the links should be dropped or new topics on the actual optometric residencies should be initiated. I think it might be useful to actually describe what an OD residency consists of, as it is unlike medical residency, but more like a fellowship. PedEye1 02:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Good points about tone down tone of article as Wiki is like a global "encyclopedia". The preachy/opinion stuff should be left for textbooks, blogs, forums, etc. Thanks!

Please note many edits on optometry page were USA centric. I suggest authors confine US stuff to US section plus be self-aware & keep reader aware that scope/education/etc varies around the world.


--- I made a few minor adjustments to the Scope of practice section, hoping not to irritate anyone. The one change which might bear further improvement is the sentence stating that ODs "should" refer to medical doctors when DM, HTN or similar more systemic or otherwise "nonoptometric" conditions are diagnosed. I would consider this standard of practice, but "should" may be an objectionable term to some? PedEye1 00:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There are optometrists around the world. So "Scope of practice" had "OD's" & "in US" - which I think needs to go into the US section in this article! I agree with PedEye1 that the "tone" of this article needs to stay "encyclopaedic" -eg change "should" to "accepted standard of practice to refer and co-manage systemic diseases with other health professionals, etc. Save the "must" "should" for the text book! The equipment section - again only mentioned "US" - edited to reflect this equipment is being used by optometrists around the world! Added links! Some links within this artilcle need to be added. Is the distinction from Ophthalmology section a bit too lengthy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.229.225 (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

--- All optometrists ARE skilled in refracting; they go through courses based on the optics and methods involved in it. Just because they may specialize in something else doesn't mean they've lost their ability to refract. On the other hand, EyeMd's do not get that extensive education on the art/skill of refraction. It's not an insult, it is the basic fact of the matter. Another thing that might upset the EyeMD's (but shouldn't) is that optometrists are PRIMARY care eye doctors. It doesn't denote better; it simply means primary in the sense that if something is diagnosed, or considered for treatment, the majority of the time it is done by and optometrist, and later referred to an EyeMD. Again, that is a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.250.35 (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

--- Obviously "all" ODs are not skilled in refracting, just as not all ophthalmologists are skilled in surgery. Just because someone receives training in something doesn't mean they're skilled; similarly, many talented people can gain skills that aren't emphasized in their training. While many ODs are primary care providers, many are tertiary; the reverse holds true for MDs. Some of this is determined by geography, Pearle Vision distribution, etc. One might debate whether either private ODs or MDs provide as much primary eye care as LensCrafters, Sears Optical, etc. My guess is that some of the non-dilated primary eye care exams provided at Wal-Marts and the like would make many ODs cringe. Anyhow, Wikipedia doesn't seem like the appropriate place to make sweeping claims about either profession's primacy, especially without reliance on hard data. MDs and ODs don't need to fight so hard, there's enough work for all. IMHO PedEye1 (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical origin and explanation of the two practices

I'm not qualified to write it, but it would be very useful to have some explanation of how the two practices, optometry and ophthalmology, arose historically, and how optometry evolved into a more and more "medical" discipline with more and more rigorous training.

There are parallels in other branches of medicine; podiatrists, for example, are "doctors" who perform surgery but are not MDs. For that matter, when I was having my wisdom teeth extracted, which to all intents and purposes is a surgical procedure, I wondered why "doctors" who happen to treat teeth live in a parallel universe of training and credentials (DDS, DMD) separate from that of MDs. I once read something in which an optometrist referred to ophthalmologists as allopaths, which makes me wonder whether there could be some kind of parallel between optometry and osteopathy. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolution

somehow, a resolution HAS to be found to this ongoing bickering. it makes both professions and wikipedia look bad. imagine the semi-casual reader who comes here, and every time he sees this page, it says something different. it is no accident that one of the criteria for good and featured articles is stability. i have been in touch with an admin who is a med project member and it was recommended that we try to reach some consensus on this page. if not, i think we're going to have to have some kind of arbitration.Toyokuni3 (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

do dentists and orthodontists fight like this? it's shameful and ridiculous. Coffee joe (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Orthodontists are dentists.  :) Jwri7474 (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

duly noted. Coffee joe (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Too much stuff

Eye and vision examination

Measurement of eye pressure, also known as intraocular pressure

Diagnoses


These three sections are 1) Unnecessary, 2) Out of place, and/or 3) Too long. There's no need to provide this much detail in an article that is already on the long side. Any objections to trimming? PedEye1 (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

i agree that the page needs some trimming. how does everyone feel about starting with "Distinction from ophthalmology"? this seems to be a section that just fans the flames of the squabbling. individual feelings of rivalry just need to be left in the school yard so these articles can be accurate and informative to the general public.
however i don't think the article should be cut back to a stub. i feel that allot of the niggly details aren't relevant to an encyclopedic article, and should be replaced by more general information. Coffee joe (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
as no one has stated any disagreement to my proposal to remove the 'distinction' section, i'm doing it. incidentally, the link at the bottom of that section to it's sister section on the opthalmology page is now dead since that section has been removed. if you're wondering, my reasons are that the section is very redundant, US centric, overly detailed, and non-neutral. if you wish to re-add it or a revised version of it, please discus here first. Coffee joe (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Spam

Please remember that this article exists for the general reader -- perhaps someone who found it by Special:Randompage, or perhaps a student writing a paper about the field of optometry for a career-discovery day at school. Consequently, while it can have WP:External links that talk about the profession, it should not form a web directory for professionals. See also Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Medical_specialties, which expressly discourages lists of (including links to) professional organizations, training programs, publications, and companies working in the field. I have done a very cursory review and removed most of the spam, but I'd be happy to have someone else do a better job. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Yes - added link to "eye care professional"

What about changing the 3 Os into 4 Os? The orthoptists are missing. --171.64.204.98 23:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

In regards to the most recent change (the addition of Orthoptists as a 3rd eye professional) - certainly in NZ this is not true (they are more like nurses working in the ophthalmology ward) - can others from different locales comment on this before removing it? Fillup (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
There is also oculist and ocularist. I think the explanation of the different Os only appears here. Perhaps it should be standardized and included on all of the pages pertaining to the Os. AED 01:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this article attempts to distinguish the differences between ophthalmologists and optometrists but the Ophthalmologist article does not. The Eye care professional article is better suited to detail the differences in various eye-related professions, so I'm going to make some major edits to the "Licensing and education" section. This is how the section appears prior to those edits:
In the United States, optometrist and ophthalmologist are specific terms referring to specific state licensing and courses of professional study. Optometrists are allied health professionals who complete optometry school (plus a 4 year undergraduate program) and receive the Doctor of Optometry (OD) degree. They are required to receive board certification, and some go on to complete post-graduate residencies. Ophthalmologists are medical doctors (MD or DO) who have completed medical school (plus a 4 year undergraduate program) followed by a 3-4 year surgical residency in ophthalmology. Some optometrists further their education with advanced training (a fellowship) in a specific subspecialty of ophthalmology. These specialties can include pediatric care, geriatric care, pre and post surgery care, specialty contact lens (for kerataconus patients or other corneal dystrophies) and many others. The American Optometric Association characterizes doctors of optometry as "primary eye care providers." Ophthalmogists are trained to perform eye surgery ranging from minor procedures to advanced surgical interventions. Currently Oklahoma allows non-refractive laser surgery to optometrists. There is overlap in the capabilities of the two professions to treat eye disease with pharmacological agents and minor procedures. Though there are many common conditions that both disciplines can treat, each has a scope of practice limited by local legislature causing each to have strengths in different areas for patient care. In the United Kingdom, optometrists have completed a 3 or 4 year undergraduate honours degree followed by a minimum of a one-year "pre-registration period" where they complete supervised practice under the supervision of an experienced qualified practitioner. During this year the Pre-Registration candidate will sit a number of quarterly assessments and on successfully passing all of these assessments a final one-day set of exams. Following successful completion of these assessments and having completed one year's supervised practice the candidate qualifies for membership of The College of Optometrists and is eligible to register as an optometrist with the General Optical Council. Registration with the GOC is mandatory to practise in the UK. Members of the College of Optometrists may use the suffix MCOptom.
-AED 20:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed the paragraph about surgery and foreign bodies. It seemed unnecessary and didn't belong under the heading of "licensing and education". The applicable parts about optometrists prescribing pharmaceuticals and performing certain laser procedures in Oklahoma are already mentioned in the "optometric work" section. Eli6 02:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

WHO quote source?

"The practice is defined by the World Council of Optometry (a member of the World Health Organisation) as follows: Optometry is a healthcare profession that is autonomous, educated, and regulated (licensed/registered), and optometrists are the primary healthcare practitioners of the eye and visual system who provide comprehensive eye and vision care, which includes refraction and dispensing, detection/diagnosis and management of disease in the eye, and the rehabilitation of conditions of the visual system."

This quote is not referenced. If a reference cannot be found, I will delete -- it is somewhat redundant to the rest of the article, regardless. PedEye1 (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Pain Med Rx

I just had an exam from my Optometrist and in the chit-chat learned that O.D.'s (in the U.S.A.) have only recently been bestowed the prescriptive authority to write for pain medications. I was pretty surprised about this because eye pain can be very significant (ever had an infected scratched eye? Ouch!- and the drops alone just don't cut it). I am wondering if this would be good to include in the article or on the downside might cause drug seekers to start hitting O.D.'s up for a fix. Any ideas? I'm guessing that druggies don't do their research to for getting drugs here in Wikipedia but just want to put it out to the WP community first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.42.16 (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Not in France

http://www.optometrie-aof.com/en_savoir_plus/reglementation_en_france.html There are no opticians-optometrists in France, only opticians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.250.137.92 (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


Lead

Right now the lead section doesn't tell what Optometry actually is. It only says that this is a profession somehow related to eyes, and that is should not be confused with ophthalmology. Compare with the dictionary definition: "O.: the science or practice of testing visual acuity and prescribing corrective lenses". … stpasha » 00:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Definition

Here is the definition the user User:Dr. Mark Flora provided in which I have temporarily reverted.

Doctor’s of Optometry (O.D.) are post-graduate level members of the Healing Arts Professions who are trained and licensed in all 50 states to diagnose and treat medically, and otherwise, all diseases, abnormalities and injuries of the human Eye, it’s Adnexa (surrounding tissue) and the Visual System. They are licensed to prescribe medicines, Optical lenses, Contact lenses, low vision devices, rehabilitative therapy, Orthoptics (eye exercises), perform some in-office surgical procedures, and order medical laboratory, radiological and ultrasound diagnostic procedures. The degree: O.D. is awarded after 4 years of didactic and clinical training (equivalent to medical school curriculum) from an accredited School or College of Optometry. Many graduates will complete a post-graduate Residency program for additional training in specialty areas. Graduates must complete an oral, written and clinical examination in order to become licensed to practice in each state.

This could be used for thr US section perhaps?? But I feel its not too right for the "top" section. Unknown2004 (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not Neutral Tone

The following paragraph in the US subsection seems to break away from a neutral tone. It seems like words like "unfortunate" and "blatantly obvious" are indicative of the author's personal opinions. It doesn't seem to fit with the flow that describes other countries, either.


These laws will likely be repealed after individuals are unfortunately blinded by untrained and unscrupulous individuals. A key tenant of practicing medicine is to know what you know and know it as well as you can possibly do so but also know what you don't know and find a compentant practioner to help individuals whose problems exceed your knowledge and/or training. Ophthalmologists and optometrists have worked successfully in most communities for decades. The recent legislative changes cited here are an unfortunate and blatantly obvious attempt to cash in on unsuspecting and trusting individuals who deserve a far higher quality of care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.171.15.43 (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Optometrist/ ophthalmic optician

Please stop removing reference to ophthalmic opticians, supported by the following sources, from the article. The change you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring.

There are ophthalmic opticians (or optometrists) and dispensing opticians (or opticians); formally does not mean the same thing as formerly. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


  • Ophthalmic opticians, in the United States are opticians who make/grind/prepare and fit spectacle lens. Optometrists are not opticians although they do have training in the field. Perhaps, the reference link refers to "ophthalmic opticians " as optometrist in the UK, but not in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.1.69.130 (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm afraid this isn't American Wikipedia. It's the English language and there's a whole world outside the US. The article gives clear preference to the term optometrist and only mentions the alternative term — which the above post implies you acknowledge — in parentheses in one place. Chrisieboy (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I have added primary and secondary UK legislation as sources for the statement "also known as ophthalmic opticians". These are:
Chrisieboy (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

An optician is a completely different occupation in the US. You said it correctly, this is not American Wikipedia, so you MUST make distinctions between explanations based on location. You must add detail on how in the US, optometrists are COMPLETELY separate from opticians. That is why that explanation should NOT be placed in the first paragraph. It should go under the explanation of optometry between countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.221.1 (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it should stay where it is (unless you can provide a single source for your claim that an optometrist is not the same as an ophthalmic optician). Chrisieboy (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

How about you provide a source that is worth something. Your first source comes from the Opticians Act of 1989..straight from the UK. Need I say more on that, it SAYS Optician and its from 1989 most recently updated 1997!! Your second source is from 1994 and is strictly limited to a UK perspective being from a UK gov website. Your 3rd source, again only from UK. Your 4th source is essentially a word document that some british caseworker typed up. Really!?? I'll type up some word documents and use them for citation. The fact is, you CANNOT generalize the description on optometry under what you cite from limited (british) sources. It absolutely makes no sense to put that in the opening paragraph when that term is ONLY noted and used in britain. There are clearly distinct sections based on country, so either put the term under the UK section, or do not list it at all. End of argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.60.35 (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at this site--http://www.college-optometrists.org/en/college/about-optometry/What_is_an_Optometrist.cfm. The description of optometry in the UK has been accurately changed. A broad generalization will not be allowed. Proper citation has been made so please do not revert any changes. Thanks.

Worth something? It is English law. Reverted (again) and reported at WP:AIV. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I've added a couple of bang up-to-date references:
  • About us The Federation of (Ophthalmic and Dispensing) Opticians (retrieved 1 February 2012)
If you "type up some word documents" don't forget to get them published on the US Department of State website too. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
For the record, these last two references were reverted by an administrator on 1 February with the edit summary: "already adequately sourced statement." Chrisieboy (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we report Chrisieboy? He is clearly ignorant about what Doctors of Optometry are and thinks that since they are called ophthalmic opticians in the U.K. they should be called that everywhere in the world. Stop being ignorant Chrisieboy or you might get reported and banned.

http://www.aoa.org/x5879.xml

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos073.htm

http://www.opted.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3347#What_is_a_Doctor_of_Optometry

http://www.salus.edu/optometry_new/index.html

http://main.uab.edu/Sites/optometry/about/programs/9695/

Want more links? You abuser? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shnurek (talk • contribs) 17:37, March 6, 2012‎


Which US states permit surgery by optometrists?

This seems to be important information. Also: What surgical procedures are permitted? I couldn't find the answer on a simple Google search, but hope someone else will help. PedEye1 (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

the only one i have heard of is oklahoma permitting o.d.'s to do corneal surgery for refractive error, whatever the term is for that this week, laser keratoplasty, radial keratotomy, etc.etc.Toyokuni3 (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there a source for that? To my knowledge every state (perhaps not Oklahoma it sounds) requires a medical degree to perform surgery, and hence an opthalmic surgeon instead of an optometrist. Fuzbaby (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is one link for the Kentucky current scope of practice: http://www.kyeyes.org/the-bill.html Basically, all laser surgeries are allowed for the front of the eye except for LASIK and PRK. LASEK and epi-LASIK are allowed for example. They are just different types of laser vision correction.Shnurek (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Oklahoma's legislation is even more liberal for optometrists. They can do scalpel surgery and PRK is allowed. "After the opinion, the board of optometry examiners crafted the current ruling, which if it becomes law may allow optometrists to perform at least 100 scalpel procedures, with the exception of the 14 procedures specified, she told OSN." Source: http://www.osnsupersite.com/view.aspx?rid=5927Shnurek (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, almost every state allows ODs to perform minor surgical procedures such as: removing objects that got lodged into the front of the eye, removing eyelashes and covering tear ducts with implants. You can find it in any state legislation basically. http://library.ico.edu/Library/websites.html <----Go to optometry rules and laws by state.Shnurek (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 March 2012

Additionally, the Institute of Optometry in London offers a post-graduate professional doctorate in optometry in partnership with London South Bank University. Aston University, home to the largest optometry department in the United Kingdom, runs a flexible postgraduate framework where optometrists may work towards a Doctor of Optometry (professional doctorate), an MSc, PgDiploma or PgCert, as well as studying for Independent Prescribing registration. <ref name="Optometry Executive & Professional Development programmes">{{cite web|last=Sheppard|first=Amy|title=Dr|url=http://www1.aston.ac.uk/lhs/cpd/courses/optometry/|work=Aston University|publisher=Aston University|accessdate=20 March 2012}}</ref> Amy L Sheppard (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: It is hard to see how an advertisement for Aston University improves this article. Celestra (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes in France

Read the piece below about how Governments look to Optometry to save costs. It makes no economic or health admin sense to have medica specialists (ophthalmologists) doing optometry. Perhaps French ophthalmologists should concentrate on doing surgery and difficult ophthalmic physicianry, and leave the optometry to optometrists.

http://www.escrs.org/eurotimes/July2003/French_ophthalmology.asp

Constant Loiseau

Constant Loiseau is aparently the inventor of the instrument that is the basis of the modern Optometer , yet he is not even mentioned in this article. This should be remedied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.79.66 (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Links to works?

Overall I think the page is excellent. Does anyone know of a way to access the early texts on optometry mentioned? It would be wonderful if viewers could find links to the mentioned works and actually see what the founders of the field said about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uofm17 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Optometrists are not Ophthalmic Opticians

Optometrists are not Ophthalmic Opticians dear Chrisieboy. I do not know why you want to upset the world community of optometrists? What grudge do you have against optometrists? Which school did you go to? The title optometrist was adopted long time ago throughout the world. No country uses this outdated and confusing title. In the UK the title Optometrist was approved by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II hence we have a College of Optometrists which was granted a Royal Charter by our Queen. I am sure you can read and write otherwise you would not be editing Wikipedia. You obviously do not understand the history of British medicine and related professions and you edit as if you are very knowledgeable. Leave it to those people who are trained in the field and who genuinely understand these matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.193.194 (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

2.27.75.26 (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I have again changed the definition. I suspect there are “lay people” who are attempting to change it back.

Regards

Dr M Hope Mjhope77 (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a persistent attempt by anonymous user to mutilate the definition of Doctor of Optometry by removing the UK from it, despite postgraduate Doctor of Optometry courses being available in the UK for over 10 years.

I have requested wikipedia remove editorial privileges from this anonymous user. Mjhope77 (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

https://www2.aston.ac.uk/study/courses/doctor-of-optometry Mjhope77 (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

History section.

to me it seems more a history of spectacles than optometry as a profession. it's somehow suggested that optometrists are not opticians, but it's totally unclear when and how that separation occurred. who was the first optometrist? what were the underlying conditions that led to this profession? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.95.252.118 (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggested improvement

The article could be improved if, under either the section entitled "Definition" or the section entitled "Etymology", it explained how optometrists differ from opticians. Vorbee (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Degree in Eyecare

Optometrists are the only eye care providers with a degree in eye care. Not implying other providers are more/less qualified, simply stating a fact. This is an optometry page, not a "eye care professional" page where there maybe a discussion of the compare and contrast of different providers. It is a place to discuss optometry's virtues. Therefore would like to remove references to Ophthalmology as they do not reference optometry on their page. Tkeeper27 (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

As a simply stated fact, it seems trivial and not very valuable to encyclopedia readers. I would be in favor of removing it or presenting it with enough context to make it meaningful. There is a difference, by the way, between providing encyclopedic coverage of a subject and using an encyclopedia entry to extol the virtues of a subject. Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough, however, it is a true fact and important that readers know. This seems to be one of the only pages (so far) where optometry, specifically, is fully explained. Tkeeper27 (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
But something can certainly be true and not encyclopedic, meaning we would leave it out of an encyclopedia (although it seems that an IP editor has trimmed this down without commenting here). We shouldn’t expect a full explanation of any topic on Wikipedia because, as you point out, there are many trivial things that would be included in a full explanation that would be left out of encyclopedic coverage. Larry Hockett (Talk) 05:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Optometry Doctors (O. D)

I'm wondering why the slight push for the repetition of the phrase "Optometrists or Optometry Doctors (O.D.)". Is there a non-O.D. optometry doctor? Is this like real estate agent vs. Realtor™? It seems to me this lede sentence Optometrists or Optometry Doctors (O.D.) are those that hold a Doctor of Optometry degree. is parsed as "Optometrists or Optometry Doctors (Optometry Doctor) are those who are Doctors of Optometry". --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 17:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Optometrists, at least in the US, are rarely referred to as "optometry doctors" O.D., simply Optometrists. Where as physicians are routinely referred to as "medical doctors" M.D. rather than internist etc. Makes clear that Optometrists are doctors (of eye care). Optometry doctor vs. medical doctor. Don't mean to be redundant. Tkeeper27 (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with you. I made edits to try to pare down this language, and they are being spam "undone" by user Tkeeper27. I am not going to further the effort at this time. It seems to be an O.D. with an axe to grind. See my talk page for the back-and-forth. ProfessorPu (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on it. By the way, don't use the --- thing to separate comments here; we use ":" at the beginning of comments. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 16:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I've now protected the page against this pointless edit warring. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 01:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

optometrist subjects

subjects of career 41.113.182.155 (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

😓 41.113.182.155 (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Optometry/Archive_1&oldid=1214837659"