Concern about Specsavers Group 1 DVLA Visual Field Tests

[daveattavistock]

I have previously had a Group 1 DVLA eye test and am due to have another one soon.

However I have concerns about some of the DVLA requirements for this eye test, in that people being assessed under this contract may have used inappropriate optical correction which hampered their performance in the visual field test.

In my area these tests are conducted by Specsavers and they, in the main, use Henson 9000 devices for the peripheral vision test.

The manual for the Henson 9000 states that because the operating hemispherical field distance of the Henson 9000 is 25cm then the patient should wear corrective lenses which are appropriate for that distance and gives a table with a range of additional lens power (+1.5 to +4.0) to be added to the patient’s current distance prescription

I have contacted the manufacturer Topcon for advice on the procedures to be used with their Henson 9000 tester.

Topcon have advised me that for a standard Glaucoma 24-2 or 10-2 screening visual field test, as the manual states, the patient should wear their reading spectacles to compensate for the 25cm distance.

However, they also said that the DVLA requires the individual to wear their distance vision spectacles for the Esterman Visual Field Drivers Test.

Specsavers are insisting that people undergoing the Esterman Visual Field Drivers Test should only wear their distance vision spectacles.

The problem with this is that when using this device, the distance from the person’s eyes to the hemisphere and light sources is only 25cm and if they used their distance glasses the light sources would be out of focus.

This was borne out in practice because, when using my distance glasses only for the test, the central red dot on the Henson 9000 was out of focus for me and likewise so were the intermittent test light flashes.

Topcon could not provide me with any technical justification for the DVLA’s requirement to only use distance spectacles for the test and suggested that I contact the DVLA medical section for advice on their reasoning for this requirement

Is it possible that the DVLA has seen the operating instructions for the Henson 9000 where it mentions the use of distance spectacles (with the addition of additional corrective lenses to compensate for the 25cm test distance) and has assumed that the operator of the Henson 9000 will provide the additional corrective lenses ?

If so, I can assure you that Specsavers do not offer or use this add-on accessory for the Henson 9000.

I have tried repeatedly, without any success, to contact DVLA and pass this information on to the appropriate person within the DVLA medical section for them to comment on this potentially significant issue.

There is a website chat option on the Government DVLA website which details operating hours… but is never available as all their operatives are permanently unavailable.

There is also an e-mail contact option which takes all your details and then sends you a reply stating that DVLA are unable to use that option because e-mails are not ‘secure’.

 

[Drummer]

Anything to do with Specsavers I regard as highly dubious - they provided the wrong glasses for me and I was constantly clipping the curb when driving. I could have killed someone as they neglected to add prism to the glasses they provided, despite knowing I needed it and checking with my previous optician.
When I went back to my former optician, they were aghast at the omission and told me that I'd been driving illegally.

 

[Proud to be erratic]

I have previously had a Group 1 DVLA eye test and am due to have another one soon.

However I have concerns about some of the DVLA requirements for this eye test, in that people being assessed under this contract may have used inappropriate optical correction which hampered their performance in the visual field test.

In my area these tests are conducted by Specsavers and they, in the main, use Henson 9000 devices for the peripheral vision test.

The manual for the Henson 9000 states that because the operating hemispherical field distance of the Henson 9000 is 25cm then the patient should wear corrective lenses which are appropriate for that distance and gives a table with a range of additional lens power (+1.5 to +4.0) to be added to the patient’s current distance prescription

I have contacted the manufacturer Topcon for advice on the procedures to be used with their Henson 9000 tester.

Topcon have advised me that for a standard Glaucoma 24-2 or 10-2 screening visual field test, as the manual states, the patient should wear their reading spectacles to compensate for the 25cm distance.

However, they also said that the DVLA requires the individual to wear their distance vision spectacles for the Esterman Visual Field Drivers Test.

Specsavers are insisting that people undergoing the Esterman Visual Field Drivers Test should only wear their distance vision spectacles.

The problem with this is that when using this device, the distance from the person’s eyes to the hemisphere and light sources is only 25cm and if they used their distance glasses the light sources would be out of focus.

This was borne out in practice because, when using my distance glasses only for the test, the central red dot on the Henson 9000 was out of focus for me and likewise so were the intermittent test light flashes.

Topcon could not provide me with any technical justification for the DVLA’s requirement to only use distance spectacles for the test and suggested that I contact the DVLA medical section for advice on their reasoning for this requirement

Is it possible that the DVLA has seen the operating instructions for the Henson 9000 where it mentions the use of distance spectacles (with the addition of additional corrective lenses to compensate for the 25cm test distance) and has assumed that the operator of the Henson 9000 will provide the additional corrective lenses ?

If so, I can assure you that Specsavers do not offer or use this add-on accessory for the Henson 9000.

I have tried repeatedly, without any success, to contact DVLA and pass this information on to the appropriate person within the DVLA medical section for them to comment on this potentially significant issue.

There is a website chat option on the Government DVLA website which details operating hours… but is never available as all their operatives are permanently unavailable.

There is also an e-mail contact option which takes all your details and then sends you a reply stating that DVLA are unable to use that option because e-mails are not ‘secure’.

Raise this with your local MP. Nothing like a Parliamentary Question to get the appropriate Government Minister paying attention and then directing the large support team in that Department to ask the DVLA to provide answers. Nothing like a question from your "boss" (the Gov't Minister) to get a dep't like the DVLA to review what it is requiring to be done. It's a very blunt tool, but is a strength of our democratic system.

Raise this with your MP as 2 discrete problems:
The technical aspects about the apparent contradiction within the eyesight test requirements; and the seeming inability of getting any form of dialogue with the DVLA.

This latter aspect is an increasing, but significant, problem as more and more of daily business has to be done digitally. It applies to GP practices, Hospitals, Police crime reporting, Local authorities - I could go on. There is an increasing incidence of providing phone nos which don't get answered (but do waste your time and hopefully (from the perspective at the other end) means you'll just give in and go away (apathy then rules); and of internet software that puts your query into a search "monkey" that distorts the query into a question they want to answer - but is irrelevant to your query. Then boxes are ticked saying its been dealt with and is now closed - even though it is far from closed.

 

[Proud to be erratic]

If so, I can assure you that Specsavers do not offer or use this add-on accessory for the Henson 9000.

My limited experience with Specsavers is that they are a large chain with taut protocols about what they can and can't do; this limits their flexibility and some of their staff have very narrow training; just enough to do their job within Specsavers protocols.

Try finding a small private optician, or better an optometrist (who have even wider training and eyesight diagnostic qualifications) - ask them about add-on accessories for the Henson 9000.

 

[daveattavistock]

Raise this with your local MP. Nothing like a Parliamentary Question to get the appropriate Government Minister paying attention and then directing the large support team in that Department to ask the DVLA to provide answers. Nothing like a question from your "boss" (the Gov't Minister) to get a dep't like the DVLA to review what it is requiring to be done. It's a very blunt tool, but is a strength of our democratic system.

Raise this with your MP as 2 discrete problems:
The technical aspects about the apparent contradiction within the eyesight test requirements; and the seeming inability of getting any form of dialogue with the DVLA.

This latter aspect is an increasing, but significant, problem as more and more of daily business has to be done digitally. It applies to GP practices, Hospitals, Police crime reporting, Local authorities - I could go on. There is an increasing incidence of providing phone nos which don't get answered (but do waste your time and hopefully (from the perspective at the other end) means you'll just give in and go away (apathy then rules); and of internet software that puts your query into a search "monkey" that distorts the query into a question they want to answer - but is irrelevant to your query. Then boxes are ticked saying its been dealt with and is now closed - even though it is far from closed.

...good advice....and, coincidentally, this is what I did at the same time as I posted on here.

My MP has agreed to contact the DVLA directly and pass on my concerns and questions to them.

Hopefully, the House of Commons headed e-mail / paper will be like a prod with a sharp stick.

Your description of the way large organisations plunge you into communication abysses is entirely accurate...either that or they deliberately hide their contact phone numbers at the bottom of multiple internet page hierarchies.

The .gov website habitually channels your enquiry into limited selectable options which do not cover your situation...I'm not sure if it is deliberate or just the result of civil service incompetents with no imagination....an option named 'other' would suffice.

 

[daveattavistock]

My limited experience with Specsavers is that they are a large chain with taut protocols about what they can and can't do; this limits their flexibility and some of their staff have very narrow training; just enough to do their job within Specsavers protocols.

Try finding a small private optician, or better an optometrist (who have even wider training and eyesight diagnostic qualifications) - ask them about add-on accessories for the Henson 9000.

I believe that, for cost reasons, the DVLA has a fixed contract with Specsavers to nationally undertake the Group 1 DVLA eye tests.

This means that there is no alternative to using Specsavers.

I could be wrong... does anyone know different?

When I had my last periperal vision test the Specsavers staff were arguing among themselves about whether it was compulsory to wear distance spectacles.

 

[Proud to be erratic]

...good advice....and, coincidentally, this is what I did at the same time as I posted on here.

Ah, well done. I used to do this with our previous MP, then I became ill and she died - so my endeavours lapsed.

My MP has agreed to contact the DVLA directly and pass on my concerns and questions to them.

Interesting isn't it. Sometimes my MP forwarded my query straight to the relevant Minister and his/her Department and sometimes to the Dep't concerned. I never really worked out why a particular route was used. But I can see that asking the DVLA first allows your MP to gauge if their is a reasonable answer or solution and then, depending if your MP is friend or opposition to the existing Government, whether to ask a provocative question in Parliament about an obvious bit of bureaucratic nonsense or a friendly note to a colleague ....

Hopefully, the House of Commons headed e-mail / paper will be like a prod with a sharp stick.

One would like to think that. But given some 650 MPs, each with extensive back offices and even from a generally apathetic population, there will still be lots of headed paper in circulation! I do know that, when I received the odd query that had percolated down a slightly tortuous chain of communication originating from an MP in response to a constituent request ..... it was my immediate boss pestering me for an answer! Usually it was something complex, needed research to get to the truth, often from a distorted or mistaken perception by rhe originator and immediate answers were impractical. But....
I recall 4 such questions in a 4 yr period, each was mistaken, but needed time to explain that from facts: and each courteous explanation took more and more time and resources to convince each of the steps back up the communication chain who would rather we'd replied saying "sorry and we're happy to throw money that our budget doesn't provide to fix a problem that doesn't actually exist!"

Your description of the way large organisations plunge you into communication abysses is entirely accurate...either that or they deliberately hide their contact phone numbers at the bottom of multiple internet page hierarchies.

Exactly. There is security in having good camouflage!

The .gov website habitually channels your enquiry into limited selectable options which do not cover your situation...I'm not sure if it is deliberate or just the result of civil service incompetents with no imagination....an option named 'other' would suffice.

Fully agree. And its not just Gov't websites; insurance companies, medium or large sale of goods outlets, etc. Alas 'other' defeats the purpose of digitalisation; I'm not defending this, but I have a small degree of insight into the logic.

The principle is to replace personnel with technology; seemingly its more cost effective and can allow the accumulation of vast amount of data, which in turn can provide better management of future matters. Theoretically! The software needs to interrogate the incoming query without human involvement, using artificial intelligence - which needs considerable intellect to anticipate options that 'other' might produce. Or 'other' needs to be transferred to a human, who no longer exists because that salary has been given to IT.

The curious thing about common sense is that it's not very common.

 

[Proud to be erratic]

I believe that, for cost reasons, the DVLA has a fixed contract with Specsavers to nationally undertake the Group 1 DVLA eye tests.

Wasn't aware of that 'twist', but sort of makes sense; a niche requirement ...

This means that there is no alternative to using Specsavers.

Specsavers have their Head Office in Guernsey and their founder was very proud of her ability to remain accountable to their patients.
I wonder if you could put your query to their Head Office (copy to your MP). That might sort out if the Specsaver protocols are adrift, being incorrectly applied or the DVLA requirement is contradictory and erroneous. Specsavers won't directly confirm the DVLA, their customer, are actually requiring something erroneous; but you might be able to read between the lines.

When I had my last periperal vision test the Specsavers staff were arguing among themselves about whether it was compulsory to wear distance spectacles.

So the Specsavers protocols could be ambiguous?

 

[daveattavistock]

Wasn't aware of that 'twist', but sort of makes sense; a niche requirement ...

Specsavers have their Head Office in Guernsey and their founder was very proud of her ability to remain accountable to their patients.
I wonder if you could put your query to their Head Office (copy to your MP). That might sort out if the Specsaver protocols are adrift, being incorrectly applied or the DVLA requirement is contradictory and erroneous. Specsavers won't directly confirm the DVLA, their customer, are actually requiring something erroneous; but you might be able to read between the lines.

So the Specsavers protocols could be ambiguous?

Contacted both the Specsavers HQ in Guernsey and one of their main offices in Nottingham which oversees the DVLA contract but both would only refer me to my local Specsavers branch (even after I outlined the potential wider implications to them)....which doesn't fill you with confidence.

 

[Proud to be erratic]

Contacted both the Specsavers HQ in Guernsey and one of their main offices in Nottingham which oversees the DVLA contract but both would only refer me to my local Specsavers branch (even after I outlined the potential wider implications to them)....which doesn't fill you with confidence.

Well you've certainly tried!
Did you phone or write to Guernsey? I would certainly give it one more try in writing, to the CEO pointing out that:
you have had to resort to contacting your MP;
as well as telling them there was confusion within the local branch;
this doesn't seem to be resolvable at branch level, indeed that feels like an abdication of responsibilityby Head Office;
your next step can only be to ask the national media if they are aware of this apparent contradiction;

 

[phil42]

My limited experience with Specsavers is that they are a large chain with taut protocols about what they can and can't do; this limits their flexibility and some of their staff have very narrow training; just enough to do their job within Specsavers protocols.

Try finding a small private optician, or better an optometrist (who have even wider training and eyesight diagnostic qualifications) - ask them about add-on accessories for the Henson 9000.

Problem is DVLA ignore small private opticians as my next door neighbour found out, and insist on Specsavers, probably part of a money maker

 

[daveattavistock]

My MP has confirmed that he has written to the DVLA and included my concerns and questions.

Specsavers have, today, replied to my complaint on this issue and their response is given below:


'Dear Mr Porter,

Thank you for raising your concerns. I am grateful that you have taken the time to deliver feedback. We have now investigated the issues you have raised.

The fields machine is designed for use with the customer’s habitual visual correction used for driving. For some, that may be no prescription. If the driver requires glasses to drive, we can perform the test using the driver’s current glasses. If the driver does not wear glasses to drive, we can perform the test without correction. However, depending on the person’s prescription, the clarity of the targets may be greater without their distance glasses. They may also prefer to wear their reading glasses for the test. The DVLA has stated that discretion should be used, and the customer should be allowed to wear the glasses with which they are most comfortable.

The manufacturer has confirmed that the manual is correct for all other tests. However, for binocular DVLA tests it is the DVLA that recommend that corrections for driving should be worn in the first instance.

I understand your concerns. However, it would be very unusual for a near vision lens to make the test easier because of the way the test is designed.

Once again, I wish to thank you for the feedback as we continually strive to improve the DVLA experience for our customers.'

You will see from the above Specsavers response that the confusion I encountered (and that you may also experience) while attending such a test is understandable now.

Don't let them put you in a disadvantaged position for the peripheral vision test.