fuel for Surgery by Surgeons campaign?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

I Surgeon

Full Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
114
Reaction score
1
discuss...:cool:

VA says glaucoma patients at Palo Alto facility suffered severe vision loss due to mistreatment

By Jessica Bernstein-Wax

[email protected]
Posted: 07/21/2009 07:33:29 PM PDT
Updated: 07/22/2009 08:23:31 AM PDT

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has confirmed its Palo Alto facility put the chief of optometry on administrative leave and reassigned another optometrist while it investigated the treatment of hundreds of eye patients, some of whom experienced significant vision loss under the department's care.

In February, the VA Palo Alto Health Care System initiated a three-month internal review of 381 charts and determined 23 glaucoma patients experienced "progressive visual loss" while receiving treatment in the hospital's optometry department, the Veterans Affairs office in Washington, D.C., told the Bay Area News Group. The VA informed seven of those patients that improper care might have caused their blindness.

At issue is whether the optometry department failed to follow VA policy requiring it to consult with medical doctors on glaucoma cases — possibly costing the patients their vision.

"The VA Palo Alto Health Care System has a policy that all patients with glaucoma seen in the optometry section should have their cases overseen and reviewed by the ophthalmology section," VA Press Secretary Katie Roberts said in a statement. "Earlier this year, VAPAHCS leadership became aware this had not occurred in some cases. VAPAHCS leadership took immediate action, ordering an exhaustive review of all glaucoma patients and patients at risk for glaucoma who were being actively seen in optometry."

Of the seven blind patients contacted,
Advertisement
two have filed lawsuits, the VA said, noting it settled one claim and the other is pending.

During the review, doctors identified 87 other veterans at high risk of losing their sight and placed all of them — except one who was living out of state — under the care of the ophthalmology department, the VA said.

Glaucoma is a group of eye diseases that can cause vision loss and blindness by damaging the optic nerve, according to the National Eye Institute's Web site. Optometrists are doctors of optometry, with a minimum of four years of training, who can treat glaucoma if certified. Ophthalmologists are medical doctors with eight years of training, including medical school, an internship and a residency.

As a result of the probe, the ophthalmology department now handles all glaucoma cases and is supervising the optometry department, the VA said.

The investigation came after doctors discovered a 62-year-old male veteran had "significant visual loss in one eye as a result of poorly controlled glaucoma" during a Jan. 16, 2009, visit to the ophthalmology clinic, the VA said in a second written statement. He had been treated at the hospital's optometry unit since at least June 13, 2005, when a clinic note indicated optometrists suspected he had glaucoma.

"Ophthalmology Service became concerned that optic nerve damage and visual loss might have been avoided if the patient had been referred to ophthalmology sooner," the statement said.

A VA physician involved in the investigation said the patient saw Optometry Chief Curtis Keswick for years but wasn't treated for his glaucoma. The patient went blind in one eye and experienced serious vision loss in the other, said the physician, who asked not to be identified for fear of reprisal.

"They watched the optic nerve get worse, worse, worse, and they documented it," the doctor said. "This particular patient was never even put on eye drops."

Reached by phone Monday, Keswick said he couldn't give his version of what happened because the VA had barred him from speaking about the case.

"As part of the investigation, which is still ongoing, I have been mandated not to talk with anyone about it," Keswick said.

Optometrists and ophthalmologists have been fighting over glaucoma certification requirements for optometrists after state legislation passed last year broadened optometrists' ability to treat the disease and prescribe medication.

Backers of the bill, sponsored by Sen. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana, argued it would enable more people with glaucoma to receive treatment. Ophthalmologists have expressed concern about the amount of training optometrists receive.

Last week the California State Board of Optometry accepted final education recommendations for the certification and will enact regulations in January of next year, said Mona Maggio, board executive officer.

Keswick has no California glaucoma certification, according to the state board's Web site. However, he is also licensed in Washington state, where additional certification is not required for optometrists to treat glaucoma with topical medications, a spokeswoman for the Washington Department of Health said.

Doctors with certifications from other states can practice at the VA. However, the VA has a stricter ethics policy than many private institutions, VA spokeswoman Roberts said.

Members don't see this ad.
 
I guess our glaucoma clinic, and every clinic for that matter at the VA is gonna get a lot busier if this spreads to every VA.

A glaucoma specialist once told me, even as a general ophthalmologist that within 10 yrs of setting up shop you will have so many glaucoma patients that the only way to get rid of them is to close shop and leave town.
 
I've read, heard, and seen so many cases of undiagnosed glaucoma by OPHTHALMOLOGISTS, that it would make your frickin head spin. So don't even go there "I Surgeon". Maybe ophtho could use some more training? My suggestion is pay particular attention to those pesky LTGs, they tend to easily slip through the cracks of the army of "ophthalmic techs" doing your "exams" for you. You could even spare a minute and actually look at the nerve with something other then a BIO. Please don't delegate that also.

Also, while you are rallying the troops for "surgery by surgeons", I'll be drumming up support for "Eyecare by Eye doctors", you may want to ignore the fact that your PCP, pedes, etc colleagues can't diagnose eye "anything" worth a damn, throwing abx at everything from choroidal melanoma, to EBMD. I'm sure this double standard of yours suits you just fine, but it (and you) make me sick.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I've read, heard, and seen so many cases of undiagnosed glaucoma by OPHTHALMOLOGISTS, that it would make your frickin head spin. So don't even go there "I Surgeon". Maybe ophtho could use some more training? My suggestion is pay particular attention to those pesky LTGs, they tend to easily slip through the cracks of the army of "ophthalmic techs" doing your "exams" for you. You could even spare a minute and actually look at the nerve with something other then a BIO. Please don't delegate that also.

Also, while you are rallying the troops for "surgery by surgeons", I'll be drumming up support for "Eyecare by Eye doctors", you may want to ignore the fact that your PCP, pedes, etc colleagues can't diagnose eye "anything" worth a damn, throwing abx at everything from choroidal melanoma, to EBMD. I'm sure this double standard of yours suits you just fine, but it (and you) make me sick.

blah blah blah blah blah
 
I've read, heard, and seen so many cases of undiagnosed glaucoma by OPHTHALMOLOGISTS, that it would make your frickin head spin. So don't even go there "I Surgeon". Maybe ophtho could use some more training? My suggestion is pay particular attention to those pesky LTGs, they tend to easily slip through the cracks of the army of "ophthalmic techs" doing your "exams" for you. You could even spare a minute and actually look at the nerve with something other then a BIO. Please don't delegate that also.

Also, while you are rallying the troops for "surgery by surgeons", I'll be drumming up support for "Eyecare by Eye doctors", you may want to ignore the fact that your PCP, pedes, etc colleagues can't diagnose eye "anything" worth a damn, throwing abx at everything from choroidal melanoma, to EBMD. I'm sure this double standard of yours suits you just fine, but it (and you) make me sick.


I'm sorry for bringing it up.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like the OD's and MD's don't get along very well at the Palo Alto VA... Honestly, I could tell you a few horror stories of MD's dropping the ball at a number of VA facilities, but ... I won't.:whistle:
 
I've read, heard, and seen so many cases of undiagnosed glaucoma by OPHTHALMOLOGISTS, that it would make your frickin head spin. So don't even go there "I Surgeon". Maybe ophtho could use some more training? My suggestion is pay particular attention to those pesky LTGs, they tend to easily slip through the cracks of the army of "ophthalmic techs" doing your "exams" for you. You could even spare a minute and actually look at the nerve with something other then a BIO. Please don't delegate that also.

Also, while you are rallying the troops for "surgery by surgeons", I'll be drumming up support for "Eyecare by Eye doctors", you may want to ignore the fact that your PCP, pedes, etc colleagues can't diagnose eye "anything" worth a damn, throwing abx at everything from choroidal melanoma, to EBMD. I'm sure this double standard of yours suits you just fine, but it (and you) make me sick.

This is more than an inappropriate comment for someone who did nothing more than ask the forum to "discuss" and article. He posted the article and didn't do any condemnation of anyone or any field...just asked for frank discussion...
 
This is more than an inappropriate comment for someone who did nothing more than ask the forum to "discuss" and article. He posted the article and didn't do any condemnation of anyone or any field...just asked for frank discussion...

Sometimes I think the best approach for glaucoma is the tumor board approach, where a case is presented to an interdisciplinary panel for opinion and recommendations. At an institutional facility like the VA, which in Palo Alto is affiliated with Stanford University School of Medicine, shouldn't be all that difficult.
 
This is more than an inappropriate comment for someone who did nothing more than ask the forum to "discuss" and article. He posted the article and didn't do any condemnation of anyone or any field...just asked for frank discussion...

100% agree. :thumbup:
 
This is more than an inappropriate comment for someone who did nothing more than ask the forum to "discuss" and article. He posted the article and didn't do any condemnation of anyone or any field...just asked for frank discussion...



sure it was :rolleyes:

don't piss on me and tell me its raining.

Maybe I'll just start posting cases of ophtho misdiagnosis/mismanagement over in the OD forum, you know "just for frank discussion". Of course, I'd see little point in that, and not waste my breath. This thread on the other hand, I have ALL the time in the world for. Care to play?
 
Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I feel like this thread could use a little civility.
 
Never cease to amaze me just how much "optometry monitoring" occurs on this forum. Business must slow... :D
 
Members don't see this ad :)
sure it was :rolleyes:

don't piss on me and tell me its raining.

Maybe I'll just start posting cases of ophtho misdiagnosis/mismanagement over in the OD forum, you know "just for frank discussion". Of course, I'd see little point in that, and not waste my breath. This thread on the other hand, I have ALL the time in the world for. Care to play?



During medical school, physicians have training in psychiatry. One of my old psych attendings frequently instructed us that we should not argue with those with delusional traits because doing only allows one to become incorporated into the delusional complex. Judging from the above remarks, and previous comments over the past few months on this form, it is clear that PBEA is delusional, and further argument will only worsen this condition.
 
Sometimes I think the best approach for glaucoma is the tumor board approach, where a case is presented to an interdisciplinary panel for opinion and recommendations. At an institutional facility like the VA, which in Palo Alto is affiliated with Stanford University School of Medicine, shouldn't be all that difficult.

I have no experience dealing with "tumor boards" but it would seem to me that the issue of tumors would center around the best course of treatment not whether the patient has the tumor or not.

As far as glaucoma goes, the disagreements usually center around whether the person even has glaucoma at all.

I recall reading a study once in which the authors presented different cases to 10 different fellowship trained glaucoma specialists and essentially got 10 different opinions on whether the patient even had it and the best course of treatment.
 
This is more than an inappropriate comment for someone who did nothing more than ask the forum to "discuss" and article. He posted the article and didn't do any condemnation of anyone or any field...just asked for frank discussion...

I won't speak for PBEA, but it would seem to me that the problem is with the title of the thread, not the content of the posting.
 
I have no experience dealing with "tumor boards" but it would seem to me that the issue of tumors would center around the best course of treatment not whether the patient has the tumor or not.

As far as glaucoma goes, the disagreements usually center around whether the person even has glaucoma at all.

I recall reading a study once in which the authors presented different cases to 10 different fellowship trained glaucoma specialists and essentially got 10 different opinions on whether the patient even had it and the best course of treatment.

Tumor board is a muliti-disciplinary modality designed to select the best course of action for patients with complicated conditions, i.e. cancers, etc. For example, a patient with stage VI hepatocellular carcinoma might be discussed at a tumor board consisting of a gastroenterologist, oncologist, radiologist, surgeron, and pathologist.

Do you have any references of the above-mentioned studies? I would be very curious to take a look for myself. Gold-standard for glaucoma definition is a visual field test. If there are no changes on the visual field test, glaucoma is not present. Whole other issues are glaucoma suspects, patients with known glaucoma when deciding if there is progression, normal-tension glaucomas, and whole veriety of secondary glaucomas. Those may be tougher to follow especially is patient is a poor test taker.
 
Do you have any references of the above-mentioned studies? I would be very curious to take a look for myself. Gold-standard for glaucoma definition is a visual field test. If there are no changes on the visual field test, glaucoma is not present. Whole other issues are glaucoma suspects, patients with known glaucoma when deciding if there is progression, normal-tension glaucomas, and whole veriety of secondary glaucomas. Those may be tougher to follow especially is patient is a poor test taker.

I don't. It was an article I read while a second or third year student and that's over 10 years ago.

I'm also interested in your take on visual fields being the gold standard. I can agree with that statement but I'm puzzled by your assertion "if there are no changes on the visual field test, glaucoma is not present."

Do you even bother with any form of SLO for glaucoma? If so, under what conditions? Why bother with GDx or OCT if you're just going to wait for a field defect to appear before making the diagnosis of glaucoma?

Surely if a patient presents to you with pressures of 50, you don't wait for a field defect to appear before you treat. So then how about pressures of 40? 30? 29? 28? At what IOP (if any) do you treat even with a clear visual field?
 
Tumor board is a muliti-disciplinary modality designed to select the best course of action for patients with complicated conditions, i.e. cancers, etc. For example, a patient with stage VI hepatocellular carcinoma might be discussed at a tumor board consisting of a gastroenterologist, oncologist, radiologist, surgeron, and pathologist.

In what scenario other than perhaps NTG would that type of multi-disciplinary approach be helpful for glaucoma patients?

Or when you say board in this case, are you referring to a panel of eye doctors?
 
The presence of a characteristic field defect is a finding in glaucoma, but is not required for a patient to have a diagnosis of glaucoma. Progressive optic neuropathy is the definition of glaucoma. Our ability to detect field defects is rudimentary and defects are likely present well before showing up on a Humphrey. If a patient progresses from a 0.4 cup to a 0.9 cup and hasn't developed a detectable field defect, would you say this patient doesn't have glaucoma? I think they certainly do. KHE makes a good point about the utility of GDX or OCT to monitor for optic nerve changes. Often stereo photos allow for comparison and are quite useful as well. There are cases that are hard to call where maybe they are a suspect, maybe they have glaucoma. It can be difficult, and often you have to follow a patient for an extensive period of time to be certain. I think that both ophthalmologists and optometrists struggle with these challenging cases.
 
I don't. It was an article I read while a second or third year student and that's over 10 years ago.
Sorry to hear that. You should have kept the reference.

Do you even bother with any form of SLO for glaucoma? If so, under what conditions? Why bother with GDx or OCT if you're just going to wait for a field defect to appear before making the diagnosis of glaucoma?
KHE, please, I respect you as an optometrist and I think you are one of the more reasonable optometrists posting on this forum. Yes, I do bother looking at discs; your assumption that I don't is unwarranted. OCT/GDX have their own problems (which I am going to get into here), but they are useful (arguably) because they provide objective evidence of nerve fiber layer loss, especially helpful if the patient is not able to produce a relaible visual field test (a subjective test).

Surely if a patient presents to you with pressures of 50, you don't wait for a field defect to appear before you treat. So then how about pressures of 40? 30? 29? 28? At what IOP (if any) do you treat even with a clear visual field?
You are talking about a completely different topic here. If your patient has narrow angles and develops pressure of 50 from an acute primary angle closure which is broken by medical, surgical or laser means and no evidence of visual field defect or nerve fiber layer loss is subsequesntly found (i.e. patient has not lost any vision), does he/she have glaucoma? In addition, I am very familiar with OHTS study (are you? :)) and do treat ocular hypertensives on regular basis.
 
Last edited:
In what scenario other than perhaps NTG would that type of multi-disciplinary approach be helpful for glaucoma patients?

Or when you say board in this case, are you referring to a panel of eye doctors?

I was just trying to illustrate OSMD's point about meaning of the term "tumor board". You mentioned in your post you were not familiar with it.
 
The presence of a characteristic field defect is a finding in glaucoma, but is not required for a patient to have a diagnosis of glaucoma.
Perhaps the more accurate definition would be that glaucoma is a group of diseases characterized by progressive optic neuropathy AND visual field loss.

If a patient progresses from a 0.4 cup to a 0.9 cup and hasn't developed a detectable field defect, would you say this patient doesn't have glaucoma?
If their HVF is normal I would call them a strong suspect, follow them carefully, and likely treat them. But I would not give them a diagnosis of glaucoma. I doubt you've seen too many patients with progression from 0.4 to 0.9 without visual field changes. And I do routinely see African American patients (frequently referred in by optometrists) with 0.85 cups and normal HVF/OCT. Do they all have glaucoma?

I think that both ophthalmologists and optometrists struggle with these challenging cases.
Definitely.
 
Last edited:
KHE, please, I respect you as an optometrist and I think you are one of the more reasonable optometrists posting on this forum. Yes, I do bother looking at discs; your assumption that I don't is unwarranted. OCT/GDX have their own problems (which I am going to get into here), but they are useful (arguably) because they provide objective evidence of nerve fiber layer loss, especially helpful if the patient is not able to produce a relaible visual field test (a subjective test).

No where on this or any other thread did I even remotely suggest that you don't look at discs. You did however make the statement "If there are no changes on the visual field test, glaucoma is not present." I was simply asking for clarification of that statement.

You are talking about a completely different topic here. If your patient has narrow angles and develops pressure of 50 from an acute primary angle closure which is broken by medical, surgical or laser means and no evidence of visual field defect or nerve fiber layer loss is subsequesntly found (i.e. patient has not lost any vision), does he/she have glaucoma? In addition, I am very familiar with OHTS study (are you? :)) and do treat ocular hypertensives on regular basis.

O...H....T....S.... what's that?
 
No where on this or any other thread did I even remotely suggest that you don't look at discs. You did however make the statement "If there are no changes on the visual field test, glaucoma is not present." I was simply asking for clarification of that statement.



O...H....T....S.... what's that?


Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. This is a pivotal trial that resulted in major changes in how we treat ocular hypertesive patients. Every healthcare professional treating glaucoma suspects or any patients with glaucoma should be familiar with this study.


[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:701-713. .
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] Background Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) is one of the leading causes of blindness in the United States and worldwide. Three to 6 million people in the United States are at increased risk for developing POAG because of elevated intraocular pressure (IOP), or ocular hypertension. There is no consensus on the efficacy of medical treatment in delaying or preventing the onset of POAG in individuals with elevated IOP. Therefore, we designed a randomized clinical trial, the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. .
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Objective To determine the safety and efficacy of topical ocular hypotensive medication in delaying or preventing the onset of POAG. .
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Methods A total of 1636 participants with no evidence of glaucomatous damage, aged 40 to 80 years, and with an IOP between 24 mm Hg and 32 mm Hg in one eye and between 21 mm Hg and 32 mm Hg in the other eye were randomized to either observation or treatment with commercially available topical ocular hypotensive medication. The goal in the medication group was to reduce the IOP by 20% or more and to reach an IOP of 24 mm Hg or less. .
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Main Outcome Measures The primary outcome was the development of reproducible visual field abnormality or reproducible optic disc deterioration attributed to POAG. Abnormalities were determined by masked certified readers at the reading centers, and attribution to POAG was decided by the masked Endpoint Committee. .
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Results During the course of the study, the mean ± SD reduction in IOP in the medication group was 22.5% ± 9.9%. The IOP declined by 4.0% ± 11.6% in the observation group. At 60 months, the cumulative probability of developing POAG was 4.4% in the medication group and 9.5% in the observation group (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.59; P<.0001). There was little evidence of increased systemic or ocular risk associated with ocular hypotensive medication. .
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Conclusions Topical ocular hypotensive medication was effective in delaying or preventing the onset of POAG in individuals with elevated IOP. Although this does not imply that all patients with borderline or elevated IOP should receive medication, clinicians should consider initiating treatment for individuals with ocular hypertension who are at moderate or high risk for developing POAG..
 
O...H....T....S.... what's that?[/QUOTE]

That's scary:confused:
 
The point of my post was that while a field defect is present early in the course of glaucoma, we can't necessarily detect it. Presumably, the loss of a single ganglion cell will result in some increment of field loss. Glaucoma is by definition a change in the optic nerve, not a static measurement of the nerve (a 0.85 cup as in your example) or a detectable field defect on a 24-2. I have seen plenty of patients with a 0.9 cup, intact rim, and no field defect on a 24-2. This doesn't mean that they don't have a field defect, and it certainly doesn't mean that they don't have glaucoma if the nerve has changed from a prior exam. Progressive cupping with or without a field defect is a reason to lower IOP. Look at the 1st sentence of the outcome measures in the OHTS abstract that you posted, it says or, not and.
 
Glaucoma is by definition a change in the optic nerve, not a static measurement of the nerve (a 0.85 cup as in your example) or a detectable field defect on a 24-2.
This is only part of it, NOT a complete definition.

I have seen plenty of patients with a 0.9 cup, intact rim, and no field defect on a 24-2. This doesn't mean that they don't have a field defect, and it certainly doesn't mean that they don't have glaucoma if the nerve has changed from a prior exam.
These two sentences contradict each other. No field defect on 24-2; This doesn't mean that they don't have a field defect. So, do they or don't they have a field defect in your example?

Progressive cupping with or without a field defect is a reason to lower IOP. Look at the 1st sentence of the outcome measures in the OHTS abstract that you posted, it says or, not and.
I agree wih the first sentense; treatment is warranted. But personally I don't label someone as having glaucoma unless they defeloped a field defect. Yes, "structural damage before functional damage", but unless there is a field defect present I label these patients strong suspects.
 
I guess we can just agree to disagree on our definition. My example is not contradictory. There are more sensitive methods to detect field defects like SWAP, frequency doubling, and others that show field loss prior to detection on a 24-2. These techniques aren't used in most clinical settings. My example is to illustrate that just because a 24-2 is full, it doesn't mean that a patient doesn't have field loss and progressive nerve damage. It simply means that the 24-2 didn't detect any field loss and another more sensitive method may have. I think this discussion illustrates the difficulty in classifying a patient as a suspect or actually having glaucoma. I don't know that there is an absolute right answer?
 
This is only part of it, NOT a complete definition.

These two sentences contradict each other. No field defect on 24-2; This doesn't mean that they don't have a field defect. So, do they or don't they have a field defect in your example?

I agree wih the first sentense; treatment is warranted. But personally I don't label someone as having glaucoma unless they defeloped a field defect. Yes, "structural damage before functional damage", but unless there is a field defect present I label these patients strong suspects.

Someone without a defect on a 24-2 test could in theory have a complete field loss beyond 31 degrees so I'm not sure I see the point in labeling someone as "a strong suspect" vs "a glaucoma patient" in the above situation. Is it just the lack of a field defect on a 24-2 that keeps you from saying to someone "you have glaucoma?"
 
I guess we can just agree to disagree on our definition. My example is not contradictory. There are more sensitive methods to detect field defects like SWAP, frequency doubling, and others that show field loss prior to detection on a 24-2. These techniques aren't used in most clinical settings. My example is to illustrate that just because a 24-2 is full, it doesn't mean that a patient doesn't have field loss and progressive nerve damage. It simply means that the 24-2 didn't detect any field loss and another more sensitive method may have. I think this discussion illustrates the difficulty in classifying a patient as a suspect or actually having glaucoma. I don't know that there is an absolute right answer?

This whole discussion again shows the wide ranging opinions on this. It's not like being pregnant where either you are or you're not. Considering that many people can't even really agree on a solid definition of glaucoma vs glaucoma suspect, it's no small wonder that people can't always agree on when to treat or how to treat.
 
Sometimes I think the best approach for glaucoma is the tumor board approach, where a case is presented to an interdisciplinary panel for opinion and recommendations. At an institutional facility like the VA, which in Palo Alto is affiliated with Stanford University School of Medicine, shouldn't be all that difficult.

I think this would be a waste of time. As a glaucoma specialist, some of the most difficult (clinical) cases are ones where it is difficult to say for sure whether a patient has glaucoma. When I discuss it with my colleagues, opinions are often quite varied. Discussion can be helpful for some new ideas occasionally but the most difficult cases are difficult for a reason. It's unlikely anybody is going to be able to give you a definitive answer.

In any case, in the example given here in the original post, I think it's pretty clear that the optometry department was negligent here. (Assuming details of the case are correct as given) Tumor board wasn't necessary here, any competent practitioner should have picked this up.
 
During medical school, physicians have training in psychiatry. One of my old psych attendings frequently instructed us that we should not argue with those with delusional traits because doing only allows one to become incorporated into the delusional complex. Judging from the above remarks, and previous comments over the past few months on this form, it is clear that PBEA is delusional, and further argument will only worsen this condition.

I wouldnt trust your ability to diagnose (or treat) any psychiatric condition. It's because of this type of arrogance that I get to occasionaly see the 5yo on concerta, ritalin, etc, and they have never been prescribed the -6.00 ou specs.

Physicians also have training in eyes too. What is that like? a few lectures and maybe a rotation in some ophtho clinic? Yeah you are real qualified:rolleyes:.
 
I wouldnt trust your ability to diagnose (or treat) any psychiatric condition. It's because of this type of arrogance that I get to occasionaly see the 5yo on concerta, ritalin, etc, and they have never been prescribed the -6.00 ou specs.

Physicians also have training in eyes too. What is that like? a few lectures and maybe a rotation in some ophtho clinic? Yeah you are real qualified:rolleyes:.

really man? really? is this necessary?

and with all due respect to my general medical colleagues, there is little more training in Ophtho in MD school than OD school gives in Psychiatry (I would imagine). We do get some lectures, but nobody leaves MD school feeling like they can treat and diagnose ocular disease....

The focus MD school gives is to know WHEN to refer to Ophtho/Optom, not how to treat or diagnose (other than some major - broad - diagnoses like cataracts, diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, etc)...and this is EXTENSIVELY reviewed in all rotations in school AND through their residencies...I RARELY see a consult to Ophtho that I disagreed with as they are usually outstandingly astute at identifying when Ophtho should see their patient...and for that I appreciate all their assistance.
 
really man? really? is this necessary?

and with all due respect to my general medical colleagues, there is little more training in Ophtho in MD school than OD school gives in Psychiatry (I would imagine). We do get some lectures, but nobody leaves MD school feeling like they can treat and diagnose ocular disease....

The focus MD school gives is to know WHEN to refer to Ophtho/Optom, not how to treat or diagnose (other than some major - broad - diagnoses like cataracts, diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, etc)...and this is EXTENSIVELY reviewed in all rotations in school AND through their residencies...I RARELY see a consult to Ophtho that I disagreed with as they are usually outstandingly astute at identifying when Ophtho should see their patient...and for that I appreciate all their assistance.

The arrogance on this thread is astounding. I am here to correct their error, and hopefully make them suffer. If you don't like it, get out of the way. And stop with the ridiculous and gushing approval of your general medical colleagues referral practices. No need to shop for referrals here doc, I'm sure you are booked till rapture.

Let it go
 
The arrogance on this thread is astounding. I am here to correct their error, and hopefully make them suffer. If you don't like it, get out of the way. And stop with the ridiculous and gushing approval of your general medical colleagues referral practices. No need to shop for referrals here doc, I'm sure you are booked till rapture.

Let it go
As you can see from my title, I'm a lowly resident...and to be honest, the more consults we get, the harder we work in residency. I don't make a penny more if I see 0 consults from my general medicine patients or 12...to me it's about the patient's eye health...sorry if you think that "mak(ing) them suffer" is the way to go with your colleagues or otherwise. On the other hand, you are very delusional if you think your posts on an Ophtho forum truly make people suffer...really

I wish you the best, but I really don't think there's a chance on this planet that I can rationalize with you in any way...I hope one day you're no longer out to make enemies of people that (1) you don't know (2) don't know you and (3) could possibly be your colleague one day...until that day, I wish you the best
 
The arrogance on this thread is astounding. I am here to correct their error, and hopefully make them suffer. If you don't like it, get out of the way. And stop with the ridiculous and gushing approval of your general medical colleagues referral practices. No need to shop for referrals here doc, I'm sure you are booked till rapture.

Let it go


Can we say...chip on the shoulder?
 
really man? really? is this necessary?

and with all due respect to my general medical colleagues, there is little more training in Ophtho in MD school than OD school gives in Psychiatry (I would imagine). We do get some lectures, but nobody leaves MD school feeling like they can treat and diagnose ocular disease....

The focus MD school gives is to know WHEN to refer to Ophtho/Optom, not how to treat or diagnose (other than some major - broad - diagnoses like cataracts, diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, etc)...and this is EXTENSIVELY reviewed in all rotations in school AND through their residencies...I RARELY see a consult to Ophtho that I disagreed with as they are usually outstandingly astute at identifying when Ophtho should see their patient...and for that I appreciate all their assistance.

My concern is not that referrals made are inappropriate, but rather patients that often times need an eye consult do not get one. I've already seen too many blind people that otherwise might have had a better outcome if only their provider had asked for a consult.

Unfortunately, we OD's do have to endure psychiatry lectures in school.
 
I Surgeon, can I borrow some of your "hubris" ? I thought I had enough but wow I have to tip my hat to you. I can use some more while I am in clinic instead of being professional, caring+understanding, and humble to the patients I am seeing as a student doctor. It seems as if the largest proverbial "chip" is on your shoulder. Why else do you always act like an "expletive deleted" whenever referring to doctors of optometry? I Surgeon you are my hero.......





peace out
 
Last edited:
I Surgeon, can I borrow some of your "hubris" ? I thought I had enough but wow I have to tip my hat to you. I can use some more while I am in clinic instead of being professional, caring+understanding, and humble to the patients I am seeing as a student doctor. It seems as if the largest proverbial "chip" is on your shoulder. Why else do you always act like an "expletive deleted" whenever referring to doctors of optometry? I Surgeon you are my hero.......





peace out

This thread is dead troll:D
 
http://www.jvra.com/Verdict_Trak/professional.aspx?search=313


So after looking at this link should I assume that most ophthalmologists are negligent? OF COURSE NOT!!!!!!! Most are highly competent......

You are trying to degrade Optometry with this thread plain and simple. A family member of mine who is what most lay people consider a surgeon----> Orthopedic Surgeon ( I get asked EVERY day if I will be doing LASIK for people in the future--lol) says that when you are on top you don't pick little fights and squabbles because my friend, I Surgeon, you feel like you are wasting your time and breath when you know you are the best..........Does it just piss you off that we get only 8 years of education + an optional year of residency versus your 8 years + 4 years and most lay people STILL don't know the fricking difference! I mean does that make you angry? The fact that we are both called eye doctors whether there is an MD or an OD next to our names? I think it burns you up inside and this is why you act like an "expletive deleted" on here regarding your incessant bashing of optometry.......

have a nice day:rolleyes:
 
http://www.jvra.com/Verdict_Trak/professional.aspx?search=313


So after looking at this link should I assume that most ophthalmologists are negligent? OF COURSE NOT!!!!!!! Most are highly competent......

You are trying to degrade Optometry with this thread plain and simple. A family member of mine who is what most lay people consider a surgeon----> Orthopedic Surgeon ( I get asked EVERY day if I will be doing LASIK for people in the future--lol) says that when you are on top you don't pick little fights and squabbles because my friend, I Surgeon, you feel like you are wasting your time and breath when you know you are the best..........Does it just piss you off that we get only 8 years of education + an optional year of residency versus your 8 years + 4 years and most lay people STILL don't know the fricking difference! I mean does that make you angry? The fact that we are both called eye doctors whether there is an MD or an OD next to our names? I think it burns you up inside and this is why you act like an "expletive deleted" on here regarding your incessant bashing of optometry.......

have a nice day:rolleyes:

I'm sorry that article hurt your feelings and has affected you that bad. You really need to talk to somebody. I'm starting to worry about you. Good Luck to you.
 
http://www.jvra.com/Verdict_Trak/professional.aspx?search=313


So after looking at this link should I assume that most ophthalmologists are negligent? OF COURSE NOT!!!!!!! Most are highly competent......

You are trying to degrade Optometry with this thread plain and simple. A family member of mine who is what most lay people consider a surgeon----> Orthopedic Surgeon ( I get asked EVERY day if I will be doing LASIK for people in the future--lol) says that when you are on top you don't pick little fights and squabbles because my friend, I Surgeon, you feel like you are wasting your time and breath when you know you are the best..........Does it just piss you off that we get only 8 years of education + an optional year of residency versus your 8 years + 4 years and most lay people STILL don't know the fricking difference! I mean does that make you angry? The fact that we are both called eye doctors whether there is an MD or an OD next to our names? I think it burns you up inside and this is why you act like an "expletive deleted" on here regarding your incessant bashing of optometry.......

have a nice day:rolleyes:

It hurts my feelings all the way up until I realize that I'm the one who can practice without restriction. It really hurts my feelings to know that I have the proper training to provide the entire spectrum of eye care. So what if some patients don't know the difference between OD and OMD. There are plenty of patients who DO know the difference. Luckily my ego doesn't require that kind of acknowledgement. Besides, the DOCTORS I work with on a DAILY BASIS also recognize the difference. :laugh:
 
Top