Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Agency
Department of Health Professions
 
Board
Board of Optometry
 
chapter
Regulations of the Virginia Board of Optometry [18 VAC 105 ‑ 20]
Action Regulations for laser surgery certifications
Stage Proposed
Comment Period Ended on 10/25/2024
spacer
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
10/24/24  1:24 pm
Commenter: John T McAllister, M.D.

Highly Concerning Regulations
 

Kelli Moss, Executive Director

Virginia Board of Optometry

Virginia Department of Health Professions

9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 300

Henrico, VA 23233

Kelli.Moss@dhp.virginia.gov

 

Dear Ms. Moss:

 

The Virginia Society of Eye Physicians and Surgeons (VSEPS) is the largest organization of eye physicians and surgeons in the Commonwealth. As a society, we protect sight and empower lives through ophthalmic education and advocating for our patients as well as the public. We strive to ensure the delivery of the highest-quality eye care in the Commonwealth.

 

Surgery should be done by surgeons. The Commonwealth has unfortunately decided to part from this seemingly self-evident truth. It is the duty of the Commonwealth to ensure the safety of its citizens. We therefore submit these comments regarding the proposed Board of Optometry regulations.

 

As the Board of Optometry finalizes the regulations for laser surgery certification, the VSEPS expresses great concern with the regulations as stated and we strongly recommend amending the current draft to reflect more stringent requirements around proctored sessions to ensure critical patient safety. We appreciate the Board’s work to focus on the provisions for proctored care, the requirement of logging complications, and the requirement that didactic education include indications and complications. However, we would like to raise our concern with the section of the draft regulations that state an individual can meet the certification requirements by attending a didactic course or by performing these procedures in a proctored session on either a model eye or on a live patient. We strongly recommend amending the proposed regulations to require both didactic and live proctored cases, whether or not on a plastic model eye.

 

Understanding the theory of laser therapy and the internal structure and shape of the eye, is not the same as performing the same surgery on living tissue. Patients come to the laser treatment with a myriad of physiologic conditions that can impact these surgeries. Eye movements, tremors, neurologic conditions, anxiety, and even at times breathing (especially in obese patients) can move the eye centimeters, when laser eye surgery treatment is in a sphere of microns. Errors on this scale due to simple patient movement can change the outcome for these patients and increase their risk of complications. Carefully proctored practice mitigates and substantially lowers that risk to a much more tolerable level.

 

If you look across various industries that involve safety risk, it is typical to require supervised live practice in addition to standard didactics. Pilots must have substantial amounts of proctored hours flying a plane prior to being able to do so alone or with customers, all after taking didactics and a test. The Commonwealth requires a minimum of 45 proctored hours of driving a car prior to getting a driver’s license, again after didactics and tests. These standards ensure the safety of the public. We strongly believe it is in the best interest of patient safety to require proctored cases in live patients after didactics and testing prior to the Board approving an optometrist to operate one of these procedures.

 

Ophthalmologists are required to have extensive didactics as well as more than two hundred live proctored cases performed in their training prior to obtaining a medical license to practice. While we understand this number would be impractical to request, we believe it is reasonable to request ten live proctored capsulotomies, ten live proctored laser trabeculoplasties, and eight live proctored iridotomies for the safety of patients in the Commonwealth.

 

VSEPS created the recommendations above with patient safety at the forefront of each objective, and while we understand the desire to decrease patient wait times and streamline business operations, we believe patient safety takes primacy over business concerns and convenience and it is our strong hope that the Board of Optometry will include these suggestions to strengthen patient safety in their draft regulations.

 

In response to allegations of endorsement, the Virginia Society of Eye Physicians and Surgeons (the largest organization of ophthalmologists in the Commonwealth), the Northern Virginia Academy of Ophthalmology (the second largest organization of ophthalmologists in the Commonwealth), and the American Academy of Ophthalmology (the largest organization of ophthalmologists in the nation) as organizations have not supported, endorsed or collaborated with organized optometry or with the Board of Optometry in the process of their developing these regulations, which as they stand represent a dangerous decrease in the standard of care of the citizens of the Commonwealth.

 

Additionally, it is important to highlight that there has been very little opportunity for the overwhelming opinion of ophthalmologists to be considered in the development of these regulations. That includes a single in-person comment opportunity that was opened within 48 hours of publication of the proposed regulations. It also includes the presence of only one single ophthalmologist (whose placement we were not requested to assist with) on the Regulatory Advisory Panel that was responsible for reviewing various sections of the draft regulations. That Panel was otherwise comprised of four optometrists (to include a representative from the Virginia Optometric Association) and one citizen member. The representation on this panel was heavily geared toward the optometric profession, leaving room for minimal input from ophthalmologists, specifically regarding the required training and proctoring needed to maintain the highest level of patient safety.

 

The Board of Optometry’s mission statement speaks of assuring patient safety. The VSEPS encourages the Board to hearken back to its mission statement, protect the citizens of the Commonwealth, and tighten standards of approval to require in-person proctoring in all cases, and place patient safety ahead of convenience or practice business concerns.

 

Thank you,

A signature on a white background

Description automatically generated

John T. McAllister, MD

President, Virginia Society of Eye Physicians and Surgeons

CommentID: 228228