Infant See Program

[Schroder79]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I wasn't at Las Vegas this past summer or the last. Things came up (like babies being born.) So this infant see program was brought up in pediatrics and also an OOPA meeting as a big benefit to the program. I found an article that though outdated (1988) discussed infant exams as worthless since there are so many other signs that would indicate a problem.
So let me sum up; how has infantsee been beneficial to your practices? Where do you see this going in the future? Finally, what are your infant exams like? I am working on a thesis project dealing with Cardiff cards and Teller cards and if they aren't used that much, the project may not be as much of a benefit as I originally thought.

 

[planex]

I found an article that though outdated (1988) discussed infant exams as worthless since there are so many other signs that would indicate a problem.

If this was my child, I would say the infant exams are not worthless...

http://www.cao.org/CMS/default.asp?CMS_PageID=453

 

[xmattODx]

I am working on a thesis project dealing with Cardiff cards and Teller cards and if they aren't used that much, the project may not be as much of a benefit as I originally thought.

Why wouldn't research be beneficial? If you come up with results extoling the virtues of the cards then it may encourage practitioners to add them to their practice. If you have negative results it may lead to better cards being developed.

Infant exams are worthwhile but I don't think their is a public knowledge on the need/benefit. Infant see in my not so humble opinion is a terrible idea for optometry and not a good public health initiative.

 

[4Eyes]

Infant exams are worthwhile but I don't think their is a public knowledge on the need/benefit. Infant see in my not so humble opinion is a terrible idea for optometry and not a good public health initiative.

Would you mind elaborating on how these two sentences go together? Just curious. 🙂

 

[xmattODx]

Would you mind elaborating on how these two sentences go together? Just curious. 🙂

Public health initiatives are usually not succesful when offered for free. People don't see value in free initiatives - "if they are offering it for free it must not be worthwhile". The infant see program requires docs to offer infant exams for free, thereby further devaluing our services in the public eye. "If infant exams are free they must not be worthwhile." If you then tell a parent that their child requires further testing/glasses/whatever-it-may-be they very well may think that this is you trying to get them to spend more money with you (almost a bait and switch).

Even in developing countries public health initiatives often require patient payments (usually nominal but still a charge). I'm all for offering charity care but if a family can pay - CHARGE THEM. It is good for your bottom line and will give your diagnosis worth.

 

[PBEA]

I wasn't at Las Vegas this past summer or the last. Things came up (like babies being born.) So this infant see program was brought up in pediatrics and also an OOPA meeting as a big benefit to the program. I found an article that though outdated (1988) discussed infant exams as worthless since there are so many other signs that would indicate a problem.

So let me sum up; how has infantsee been beneficial to your practices? Where do you see this going in the future? Finally, what are your infant exams like? I am working on a thesis project dealing with Cardiff cards and Teller cards and if they aren't used that much, the project may not be as much of a benefit as I originally thought.

An infant exam has very little to do with subjective testing (obviously) so Teller et al does not apply here. It is all objective physical exam. You should be assessing the entire orbit for malformations, tumours , etc. (Oh dont forget severe refractive error ). Any study that claims observation is equal to examination is just plain ridiculous. Infantsee is beneficial, its just HOW beneficial. We could do MRI's on everyone, but how "beneficial" would this be? Keep your questions coming 79, I'll try and answer some more (because they are good questions to ask and answer).

 

[PBEA]

Public health initiatives are usually not succesful when offered for free. People don't see value in free initiatives - "if they are offering it for free it must not be worthwhile". The infant see program requires docs to offer infant exams for free, thereby further devaluing our services in the public eye. "If infant exams are free they must not be worthwhile." If you then tell a parent that their child requires further testing/glasses/whatever-it-may-be they very well may think that this is you trying to get them to spend more money with you (almost a bait and switch).

Even in developing countries public health initiatives often require patient payments (usually nominal but still a charge). I'm all for offering charity care but if a family can pay - CHARGE THEM. It is good for your bottom line and will give your diagnosis worth.

Well said, and I agree.👍

 

[Schroder79]

Its funny that here at PUCO when prices for exams went up, so did the appointments. One thing though, and I'm sure all doctors are different, the man discussing infant see from OOPA said that he did the exam free and got patients from gaining confidence in the family. It probably depends on the population that you work in if this works though.

I'm not sure what the comment meant about being a subjective exam. (Being forced choice and all.) I think that its really great though that it has been successful. My sister in law is a nurse and she said that all the training she got with the opthalmascope was a few hours to check for strabismus and tumors.

I'm curious, do you see infants for this who are eldest/ only children or more of younger siblings? It seems that first time parents would be more interested in giving everything to their child but then again it might not work that way.
Where did you find the most success in advertising this program?

 

[PBEA]

Its funny that here at PUCO when prices for exams went up, so did the appointments. One thing though, and I'm sure all doctors are different, the man discussing infant see from OOPA said that he did the exam free and got patients from gaining confidence in the family. It probably depends on the population that you work in if this works though.

I'm not sure what the comment meant about being a subjective exam. (Being forced choice and all.) I think that its really great though that it has been successful. My sister in law is a nurse and she said that all the training she got with the opthalmascope was a few hours to check for strabismus and tumors.

I'm curious, do you see infants for this who are eldest/ only children or more of younger siblings? It seems that first time parents would be more interested in giving everything to their child but then again it might not work that way.
Where did you find the most success in advertising this program?

As a practice builder, its probably OK, but I prefer if they pay for the visit.

Forced choice is subjective (it relies on the pts response). A few years back, I helped train nurses in ophthalmoscopy. Trust me 99.9% of nurses cannot identify strabismus or a tumour, unless it is evident by external observation.

I dont participate with Infantsee, as I said, I prefer that they pay for my services.

 

[4Eyes]

Public health initiatives are usually not succesful when offered for free. People don't see value in free initiatives - "if they are offering it for free it must not be worthwhile". The infant see program requires docs to offer infant exams for free, thereby further devaluing our services in the public eye. "If infant exams are free they must not be worthwhile." If you then tell a parent that their child requires further testing/glasses/whatever-it-may-be they very well may think that this is you trying to get them to spend more money with you (almost a bait and switch).

Even in developing countries public health initiatives often require patient payments (usually nominal but still a charge). I'm all for offering charity care but if a family can pay - CHARGE THEM. It is good for your bottom line and will give your diagnosis worth.

Makes logical sense. In school, people (not just at my school, but the AOA in general) really build it up like it's the greatest thing ever. So I was just curious to hear the flip side. Thanks! 🙂