10 Patient Reviews
- Wait Time 22.6 minutes
- Easy Appointments
- Friendly Staff
- Fair and Accurate Diagnosis
- Bedside Manner
- Spends Time With Patients
- Appropriate Followup
Showing 1 - 10 reviews
Thank you for the very kind words. I very much appreciate them. Thank you for allowing me to take care of your daughter all these years.
Thank you very much for the kind words. They are very much appreciated.
I am sorry I did not greet you when initially seen. I was called up to the front desk after I called the patient. Usually it takes time for patients with infants to move to the exam room after being called so I thought I could get away quickly. That may have thrown me off my routine. If an exam if a rule-out (another doctor is asking: does this patient have this condition?) and on a small infant the exams can be brief. I do a complete exam. I do a history, the child is dilated for 20 minutes and then I see them again if the exam is not on an emergency patient with a very specific problem. Waiting in the waiting room for a long time can involve problems with insurance or, on this day, I had a very very very elderly patient for whom everything takes time. No patient is the same. A schedule does not run perfectly. Some patients take much much longer than others and that is entirely unpredictable. And remember, ask questions if you don't understand or something is not explained well. It may make perfect sense to me, but that doesn't help if you don't understand it. I have no idea about the "God in a negative manner" statement. I don't speak about religion at all in my practice. I do use the expression "God has a sense of humor" but that is never in reference to patients or their problems.
I have never responded to a negative review but some of the issues in here need some further explanation. 1. The child called the square a triangle. I did not scold the child; I merely corrected him/her. There are only four shapes on the symbol chart: a heart, a circle, a square and a house. The house has a triangular roof so calling the square a triangle could lead to confusion. I like to practice the symbols with the children before actually testing their visiond so that they know and are comfortable with what the symbols are . Actually, if a child has difficulty with the "skwa" sound in "square" on multiple occasions, I suggest that they call it a box. 2. I cajoled this child multiple times into doing the chart correctly. By the way he/she was answering, it appeared that the vision in the good eye had gone down significantly. In that case, I would be concerned about an evolving process involving both eyes; possibly in the brain. Compressive brain lesions can cause whitening of the optic nerves. That would result in the need for dilation. The "threat" was a warning given after multiple previous attempts to get the child to pay attention and do the chart. The parent added the "burning" part; the actual statement was"you will be dilated for no reason if you don't start cooperating". I was implying that he/she was making a bad choice at this point. At least 95% of children over the age of 3.5 years who are not developmentally delayed can do the symbol chart. The child had not just turned three as seems to be implied; he/she was closer to four. 3. The parent also states that I was not patient with this child. The first time I spent at least 10 minutes trying to fit the child with glasses because he/she kept looking away. I spent nearly 15 minutes doing an eye chart with this child the second time. I did want the child to finish up the chart on vision testing and he/she did eventually and satisfactorily after the previous warning. 4. I am not sure what equipment is outdated in my office. The equipment used in eye lanes has not changed in many years in terms of function. If the parent is referring to my use of a retinoscope to figure out a child's prescription, that is standard practice in the pediatric age group. The use of a phoropter (the machine most people think about when getting their eyes checked for glasses) is not possible in children. A retinoscope is standard of care. A lens is placed in front of the child's eye and then the light reflection is used to determine the prescription for glasses. An automated version of this machine is not necessarily accurate in a child. I hope that clarifies the issues. I know I am not perfect and I have bad days as do all of us. There will always be personality conflicts with the parents of patients.
So, while I am here.... A child's prescription is dynamic. I can't place this patient. Some children have an unequal prescription. I can only assume that at one point the child was 20/20 in one eye and maybe slightly near-sighted in the other. A child in that situation will not usually accept glasses as they use the 20/20 eye for distance and the near-sighted one for near. The 20/20 eye probably then became near sighted over the next year because the child grew. An increase in size of the eye can make a 20/20 eye near-sighted. The need for glasses probably is just normal for the child with age. It wasn't due to a lack of glasses.