Optician's advice for Dd(5) - does this make sense to anyone?

[leeloo1]

Sorry, this is an long!

Dd (5 years old) had her 1st optician's appointment today (no eye problems/headaches we know of, just a routine thing - & DH & I are both short sighted, so we knew she'd probably need glasses sometime). From recollection, when reading the letters - with her left eye she could read the 2nd from smallest letters, with her right eye the 3rd from smallest.

He spent a long time checking her eyes in the dark with a torch (after putting in drops to dilate her pupils), so he seemed thorough, although he did take a long phone call (in the dark!) in the middle of the appointment.

The prescription he gave us is...

Right: Sph +1.25 Cyl -1.5 Axis 20
Left: Sph +1.00 Cyl -1.25 Axis 180

The astigmatism is unfortunate, but ok I get that, but... he said she's long sighted. But surely if she was long sighted she'd be able to read the far away letters.

He also had really quickly waved a ruler in front of her and asked her what the really tiny number was - which she correctly said was a 5. Could she have read that if she was long-sighted? I realise I should have asked this at the time, but I was really shocked & we'd been there a long time & the other kids were losing patience).

When I asked, when the prescribed glasses should be worn, optician said she should wear glasses for reading (she has no problem reading chapter books/writes ok) in the classroom, when using computers, watching tv etc.

The optician also said it could take up to 3 months for her to notice any difference from wearing her glasses - surely it should be instant? It always has been when I've had them.

Its a private optician, so would it be weird to go to a chain one and have her re-tested & see if the prescription is the same? Or can someone explain to me why she wouldn't be short-sighted?

(Disclaimer I'm feeling extra paranoid as they were really unhappy when I asked to take the prescription & voucher away with me - although I realise they get money for the frames they sell. Also they asked me to sign forms in advance & one of these was saying we'd received glasses - which I said I couldn't sign yet as we hadn't received anything & she said huffily 'oh ok you can sign it after).

Thanks in advance for any opinions.

Most children under 7 are mildly long sighted

The prescription you have been given is borderline for needing glasses and if there is no squint or obvious problems then I wouldn't bother with glasses

You are obviously uncomfortable with the test so you can get a 2nd opinion

I once found a very honest final year student who told me they are pushed to prescribe glasses when there is no genuine need -a small prescription doesn't mean everyone needs glasses although some people may benefit from them

Not sure it this helps- but Dp and I are both very shortsighted and didn't get glasses until long after we should have, so we took our children very early.
Dd had perfect vision at 5, and the optician told us that was a "bad" thing because their eyeballs change shape as they grow, so at 5 they should be long sighted, so the shape change settles them into perfect vision at about, I think he said, 10. Perfect vision very young means that any shape change pushes them into short sight. (Does that make sense?) sure enough, dd was shortsighted by 11. I would have thought that wearing glasses to correct the natural long sight of young children might prevent the natural changes happening? I might be wrong about that bit......

I would get a second opinion- we always use Vision Express and have always found them excellent with children.

Thanks both of you for your thoughts - they are really helpful. My dh is adamant that they are over-prescribing to get the money (and as they asked me to complete the forms before they'd looked at her eyes - I don't feel I can argue).

I think we'll definitely get a second opinion - I wish there was someone 'neutral' you could go to though, as any other optician may be similarly motivated?!

Could you get your gp or health visitor to refer your dd to the hospital opthortist? (I think thats what it was called) the optician referred my ds after he got glasses but his prescription was a lot stronger than yours though.My dd used to go to the hospital one too instead of the optician.

Re the forms, opticians have to check that you're entitled to an NHS test before they test your eyes (DD's eyes in your case!) so they get you to sign the forms first (the form is also used by the optician to claim the sight test fee from the NHS) so I wouldn't read anything into that.

The big chains are usually much worse offenders for over prescribing than independent opticians. The optometrists at Boots, Specsavers etc will have targets for prescribing and their bonuses will depend on them. That's much less common in small independents.

The best way to find an optician you trust is personal recommendation I think. Has DD got any glasses wearing friends? You're highly unlikely to get a hospital referral with that prescription because her vision is pretty normal for her age.

Oops, just noticed you said they asked you to sign for receipt of glasses- definitely shouldn't be doing that. I wouldn't trust them either!

if she is long sighted then it will be harder for her to focus on close up work which is why the glasses are prescribed for reading/watching tv, etc. '+' at the start of a prescription means long sighted whereas '-' at the start denotes short sight.

My dd (10) is fairly long sighted and needs to wear glasses all the time. DS (7) has a very small prescription for long sight and has glasses for close work too.

DD has glasses where I pay extra for trendy frames whereas ds has frames from the free range.

Your dd should get fee eye tests and you have the option of free frames so you dont need to pay any money at all for eye test/glasses.

free eye tests that should say

p.s. I always get given a copy of the prescription even when getting dd/ds glasses from the same optician that did the eye test.

p.p.s. the dilation will help the optician to work out the prescription as they dont just rely on the eye test with the letters.

Just to add what others have said. The + sign means she is long sighted and struggles with close up work. My DS is long sighted (although with a much stronger prescription than your DD) and he really struggled to focus on books when he was trying to read this was our cue to get him checked actually. He was straining / focusing so much to try to see what was on the page that his eyeball tracked in towards his nose he went kind of cross eyed in one eye kind of a loss of the control of the muscle because he was straining so much. Obviously the glasses are to prevent your daughter having to strain / overwork the eyes when she's reading. As far as I know (particularly in my DS' case) had he not had the glasses there was a danger that both eyes wouldn't develop equally / that he might have to have a patch etc. I think that the eyes continue to develop until they're 7.

I think the glasses thing is a separate issue to the actual prescription and yes, does sound like they were a bit over zealous in trying to get you to buy glasses. If you do want a 2nd opinion, I'd ask for recommendations from friends etc.

Thanks for the posts, I understand that the + means long sighted, but how can she be more long-sighted in the eye that she couldn't see as far at a distance (read the smallest letters on the chart) with? Wouldn't that make her more short sighted in that eye? I think the optician may have written the wrong thing

I've been 'testing' her today and as far as I can tell she has no problem reading teeny writing close up with either eye. And she sat and read some comics for fun with no apparent difficulty. So does that mean she shouldn't get glasses? Or with the astigmatism is it better if she does?

I don't know. If the GP was more sympathetic I'd probably ask them...

Sorry I know no-one can really diagnose by post! perhaps a 2nd opinion would put my mind at rest - or confuse things further!

Oh and re the paying for frames, they had a teeny selection of 'free' ones and a big selection of expensive superman/star wars/princess etc - where you paid a surcharge - guess which ones dd wanted?

FYI spec savers are not set targets to issue prescriptions to children or anyone else and do not get bonuses for providing a medical examination.

I would just go down to specsavers and get another test done. I've been taking my Dds since they were 1 as I am extremely short sighted an paranoid. So far all are long sighted (eldest is 6) which is to be expected until they are 10. My eldest has an astigmatism but it is slight so doesn't require correction yet.

I've always used specsavers and found them to be marvellous.

I was shortsighted at 2.

you may have to pay for a second eye test as only one per year is funded by the nhs

You can get a retest done free if you say you weren't happy or confident in first one. Children do something called "accommodation" which means they adjust to see but that puts strain on them. The astigmatism means pretty much everything is blurred, up close or far away your dc won't have noticed this as she doesn't know what correct vision is. She will take time to adapt and may get headaches until she has adjusted but it will be what she needs in the long run.

But surely if she was long sighted she'd be able to read the far away letters.

I think that "long sight = good distance vision" is a kind of over-simplified way of describing long sightedness. I also suffer from long sight and astigmatism (admittedly, my prescription is far worse) and I can see sod all, distance or close up

By all means get a second opinion, but I think your DD will need glasses.

I had dd1 tested just before she turned 3 (no concerns, but everyone in her life wears glasses and he decided he wanted some, so I explained that the eye dr would need to look at her first!) she was slightly long sighted, but was told this is normal for her age and she'll grow out of it.

If I were you I'd get her retested, But with the prescription she's been given I wouldn't bother giving her glasses, it may well correct itself, but take her for regular eye tests.

Also the ruler thing is not really to do with sight it's to see which is the dominant eye children are asked to see the number to give them something to focus on.

Tealady1983 - Are you an optician? & if so can you put my mind at rest about 'how can she be more long-sighted in the eye that she couldn't see as far at a distance (read the smallest letters on the chart) with? Wouldn't that make her more short sighted in that eye?'

Also, do you work for specsavers? And if so would you recommend them? They're our other local opticians - and with the 2 pairs of kids glasses offer I was planning to go there if dd does need to get some as I know she'll sit on/damage them!

Did she read the smallest letters with re or le? I am not an optician but a dispensing technician. I love spec savers and would always recommend them also of she does sit on, break or loose her glasses spec savers will replace them free of charge providing they aren't designer glasses. If they are designer there is a small charge I pay usual about £10 buts it's very mimimal

I was told that children's eye muscles are more flexible which is why they can read small print and appear to not need glasses. My son is long sighted and we too were very sceptical, however what we have discovered is that it is more tiring for him not to wear his glasses. His eyesight has improved with age but he still needs his glasses for long sight.

The forms one should be blue and always signed before exam. The other yellowish and signed upon ordering and again on collection this is your voucher x

Yes East that is known as accommodation

Sorry to repeat Tealady I answered the door in between starting to type my post and finishing it.

Thanks tealady - with her left eye she could read the 2nd from smallest letters, with her right eye the 3rd (or 4th, I'm doubting myself now) from smallest.

I was asked to sign blue, yellow and another one before the appointment - all were completely blank at the time. I filled in her name and dob before signing...