UKC

Any Ophthalmologists in the house please?

In reply to GriffonVulture:

Is that the whole question?

In reply to Alyson: There's at least one optometrist and someone else (me) with some knowledge... What is your question, caller?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Its about a test my mum had today called an esterman test i think. At the bottom it had seen118/20 not seen 2/120 esterman efficiency 98. She did it three times. Just wondering if thats good or bad. (the result that is)

thanx

In reply to GriffonVulture:


Sure, she´s downstairs watching t.v. Private consultations are expensive in the evenings

In reply to GriffonVulture:

Luckily, I'm cheaper than Frau jimtitt (but only in the evening). This should be instructive:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161642082346473

If you need the paper or further info get back to me but a chat with your local optometrist and google should probably suffice.....

In reply to GriffonVulture:

The Esterman test detects any blind spots in your visual field (when you've got both eyes open), and it's used as a criterion for driving.

Here's a useful link:

https://www.specsavers.co.uk/ask-the-optician/missed-some-points-on-visual-...

So, if she's only missed a couple of points (as the results seem to say although I think there's a typo in there, plus other info is missing), that's normally OK for driving. But, you cannot take my word for it that your mum is OK to drive, all the relevant results need to be analysed and appropriate advice given.

I don't understand how your mum has ended up with the results of the test, but no advice on what they mean.

In reply to Jon Stewart: If it was a DVLA (and excuse my ignorance if I'm wrong) but I think optometrists were/are forbidden to give the interpretation of fields because that's down to the DVLA. Read that somewhere quite recently in fact.

In reply to Jon Stewart:



>although I think there's a typo in there,
yes it was not seen 2/120 Is that what you meant

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Yes, the DVLA have the final say. Realistically, if someone misses no points, then I can't see any reason why an optom can't say "you're fine (inform the DVLA of your results)", similarly, if there's a whopping great defect nudging right up to fixation then it's a clear duty of care to say "please, please do not even think about driving, in my professional opinion you are absolutely not safe, nor anywhere remotely close". In the in between cases, it would indeed be wrong to second-guess the DVLA decision, but the info in the link I posted is published and provides a good guide to the likely outcome; as such it would be sensible for the patient to behave (i.e. drive or not drive) accordingly. But in that kind of case, I would probably be prudent to get on the phone to the legal guys before I opened my mouth.

In reply to GriffonVulture:

Yes, that was the typo. Hope the info was useful - but your mum shouldn't be getting advice on this matter second-hand off an internet forum, she should know what's going on, what tests are being done, why, and what the results mean for her.

Hope her vision is good and she is well!

In reply to GriffonVulture: Incidentally, you don't need the opinion of an ophthalmologist in the first instance - a *good* independent optician (aka optometrist or previously, ophthalmic optician) will have access to a whole array of instruments comparable to anything an ophthalmologist will use in hospital. I'm thinking a Henson or (preferably) Humphries field analyser and an OCT - Optical Coherence Tomographer. These are really neat, a bit like an MRI scan but for the back of the eye.

No high street chains routinely have this kit - no, not even Specsavers! - but quite a few independents do. The advantage of an optometrist over an ophthalmologist is that a) they will be cheaper(!) and b) you will normally be able to get an appt within a couple of weeks, less in the case of an emergency.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Woah! Everyone does fields routinely (Humphrey or Henson), but for OCT you need to find an independent with one. The occasions on which OCT is crucial in managing a patient are fairly few and far between, but it could make the difference between referral to the hospital or monitoring in practice (e.g. confirming AMD is dry when it looks possibly wet).

Having OCT would be very useful to monitor patients who've already been referred and diagnosed, and instead of attending ophthalmology clinic they could come in to the opticians for scan - i.e. doing NHS work (paid for by the NHS, not the patient on the day). Not sure how much of this stuff is happening yet, but this farming out of NHS work into the community is certainly the way things are going - and a good thing too.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Sorry, yes I know that multiples have FA, - although the optoms rarely have time to discuss the results in depth. I was referring to OCT - you might be surprised how many Indys have them. My wife uses hers loads, some of which is paid for under various Welsh schemes, some of which are paid for by the patient themselves (£20 is not a lot to ask to avoid a visit to the HES) and also implicitly by the number of referrals she gets from local GPs and ophthalmologists.