 |
 |
Hi Lynda,
I agree that the eye scanners are heavy
and cumbersome. In this day and age surely a lighter version would be
available. I also agree about depth perception. I
have difficulty in scanning if the employee is wearing multifocal
glasses. The keystone makes it difficult for the person to adjust
to both types of tests and usually manages the distance with no problem but
otherwise it can be very tricky getting a true reading.
Look forward to other views on eye
scanners.
Kindest Regards,
Rosemary
From:
[log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lynda M Bruce
Sent: 12 June 2011 10:43
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [OCC-HEALTH] Vision
screeners - views please (pun intended)
Hi Jane,
I agree that Snellen
and colour vision plates should be sufficient for assessment for most jobs.
A depth perception
test only establishes if the patient has depth perception but it cannot prove
that the individual has no depth perception.
I remember years ago
(1980's) a man failed depth perception test on the keystone-and so lost his
medical certificate to operate a FLT. That evening I saw him, his dog and his
gun and the rabbit he had just shot-he clearly had depth perception-but we were
unable to demonstrate it. Incidentally yes he got a medical fitness
certificate!
I feel that with all
health surveillance we have a tendency to forget that we are 'screening not
diagnosing' and if the clients fail to satisfy the screening criteria then
the client is seen by an appropriate expert with all mod cons to consider
whether they do indeed have a problem and if so what the diagnosis and effect
on workability should be.
ie what limitations if
any should be recommended for consideration.
Personally I have
always hated the multiple bruises on my legs from carrying the very heavy
cumbersome Keystone around and I do not find the Titmus any better.
Of course I am lucky
in that I live in
Well, that's my
Sunday sermon-sorry folks-I look forward as always to the feedback.
Kind Regards
Lynda Bruce
In a message dated
11/06/2011 21:43:09 GMT Daylight Time, [log in to unmask] writes:
