Is this correct?

[whosaidtha]

I just want to check that what the dr did/said was correct because it wasn't my understanding before the appointment.
My son was picked up as having one eye stronger than the other at his eye check. Went to the opticians and had glasses. Checked a few times and 8months later eye is still weaker so we were referred to the hospital for possible patching. At the hospital they tested his eyes only wearing his glasses. Nothing without his glasses on. They said his eye was within normal range (with his glasses on) and that they didn't need to do anything else and he should just continue to wear his glasses and book yearly appointments at the optician. He will need to wear glasses for life.
I was under the impression that if he was patched his eyes could be improved so that by the time he was 8 he wouldn't need patching. I also received a letter from the hospital copied to my sons gp stating that he has no eye issues. This is not true. He does have eye issues but this is corrected with glasses. I feel the wording in the letter is wrong and could cause problems if not accurately stated.
If I am correct and need to follow up who would be best to contact next? Optician, gp or hospital?
Thanks for any help.

I’d go back to whoever referred you

I'm thinking that too. Although I could go back to the hospital to question the letter?

Does he wear the glasses all the time? If so it makes sense they did it all with his glasses on.

Yes. But I thought that they could strengthen his eyes so he eventually wouldn't need them. And also the letter implies his eyes are fine when the reality is they are only fine when he's wearing his glasses.
As I said I'm perfectly happy to be told this is standard practice and I misunderstood. Just trying to check.

It does seem slightly odd to only assess vision when it's being corrected.

My dad has had a lazy eye since an infant too. He actually went for about 15 years when he was in his early 30s without glasses as I broke his only pair when I was a baby and he couldn't afford another pair until I was in my teens. He coped remarkably well considering he had worn classes since he was 3 or 4 and adjusted so much to not having glasses that he couldn't drive at first with glasses on. He was patched as a kid but for him it didn't make much of an impact but this was a long time ago now!

I've called the optician and I'll speak to her. I remember her mentioning that the hospital would put drops in which they didn't so suspect something isn't quite right.

Speaking only as a parent it sounds like rather than assessing his vision they have been assessing how well his eyes work together to determine if there is a problem that needs patching. My understanding is patching isn’t about vision as much as one eye not working with the other so to help strengthen it. When looking at that side of things looking at it wihh their normal vision (ie glasses on) makes sense.

we have separate appointments for the drops for actual vision to indicate the prescription.

(hopefully someone who can explain better is along soon!)

@Sirzy Yes you're right.
Patching doesn't reduce the need for glasses - although usually long sighted children get less long sighted as they hot puberty.

What it does do is attempt to improve the amount of letters they can read with that eye on the letter chart when they have their glasses on.

Sorry it wasn't very well explained to you OP.