Annual Report 2013-14
01 | Optometry Australia Annual report 2013/14
Who we are and Our mission Contents:
“
The Association supported this reform for a number of reasons, most importantly because it will benefit patients and the community.
02 | Who we are & Our mission 03 | Our rebranding 04 | Our achivements 05 | President’s report 07 | Treasurer’s Report 09 | CEO Report 1 1 | Sector snapshot 13 | The influential voice Engagement activities 15 | The influential voice Engagement activities 17 | The influential voice Professional Services 19 | The influential voice Communications 21 | The influential voice Communications 22 | The influential voice Marketing 23 | The influential voice Marketing 25 | The influential voice Operations 27 | The influential voice Operations
Most significantly for patients, the Optometry Board of Australia released in March 2013 revised guidelines for the use of scheduled medicines permitting qualified optometrists with the relevant equipment and scope of practice to initiate glaucoma treatment without first having a formal comanagement plan in place with an ophthalmologist. Regrettably, this has led to litigation by RANZCO and the ASO against the Optometry Board of Australia, which is still continuing but the reform remains operational unless modified by the courts. The reforms to prescribing continue the very important evolution to our scope of practice for the benefit of patients. The reforms are a clear demonstration of the intent of national registration adopted by all jurisdictions in both the Intergovernmental Agreement for National Registration and in the founding
legislation for national registration adopted in every state and territory in Australia. The Association supported this reform for a number of reasons, most importantly because it will benefit patients and the community. First, we note that the changes do not suddenly mean every optometrist must now undertake this work. Second, the reforms are appropriately targeted to eligible optometrists— the 33 per cent who are legally able to prescribe after undertaking therapeutic training; those who have the equipment and those with the scope of practice. Third, despite now not requiring a formal comanagement agreement between optometrists and ophthalmologists, the Association does not envisage that the professions will suddenly stop talking. On the contrary, it is likely the reform will strengthen communication between
”
the professions without the formal structures imposed previously. Excellence in patient care requires a strong relationship between treating practitioners and these changes are unlikely to damage that interaction that occurs every day between optometrists and ophthalmologists. Second to prescribe after undertaking therapeutic training; those who have and those with the scope of practice.
03 | Optometry Australia Annual report 2013/14
Our achievements
Our rebranding
The Association supported this reform for a number of reasons, most importantly because it will benefit patients and the community. Most significantly for patients, the Optometry Board of Australia released in March 2013 revised guidelines for the use of scheduled medicines permitting qualified optometrists with the relevant equipment and scope of practice to initiate glaucoma treatment without first having a formal comanagement plan in place with an ophthalmologist. Regrettably, this has led to litigation by RANZCO and the ASO against the Optometry Board of Australia, which is still continuing but the reform remains operational unless modified by the courts.
“The Association supported this reform for a number of reasons, most importantly because it will benefit patients and the community.”
The reforms to prescribing continue the very important evolution to our scope of practice for the benefit of patients. The reforms are a clear demonstration of the intent of national registration adopted by all jurisdictions in both the Intergovernmental Agreement for National Registration and in the founding legislation for national registration adopted in every state and territory in Australia. First, we note that the changes do not suddenly mean every optometrist must now undertake this work. Second, the reforms are appropriately targeted to eligible optometrists—the 33 per cent who are legally able to prescribe after undertaking therapeutic training; those who have the equipment and those with the scope of practice.
Third, despite now not requiring a formal comanagement agreement between optometrists and ophthalmologists, the Association does not envisage that the professions will suddenly stop talking. On the contrary, it is likely the reform will strengthen communication between the professions without the formal structures imposed previously. Excellence in patient care requires a strong relationship between treating practitioners and these changes are unlikely to damage that interaction that occurs every day between optometrists and ophthalmologists.
Most significantly for patients, the Optometry Board of Australia released in March 2013 revised guidelines for the use of scheduled medicines permitting qualified optometrists with the relevant equipment and scope of practice to initiate glaucoma treatment without first having a formal comanagement plan in place with an ophthalmologist. Regrettably, this has led to litigation by RANZCO and the ASO against the Optometry Board of Australia, which is still continuing but the reform remains operational unless modified by the courts.
First, we note that the changes do not suddenly mean every optometrist must now undertake this work.
Second to prescribe after undertaking therapeutic training; those who have and those with the scope of practice.
The reforms to prescribing continue the very important evolution to our scope of practice for the benefit of patients. The reforms are a clear demonstration of the intent of national registration adopted by all jurisdictions in both the Intergovernmental Agreement for
Second, the reforms are appropriately targeted to eligible optometrists—the 33 per cent who are legally able to prescribe after undertaking therapeutic training; those who have the equipment and those with the scope of practice.
National Registration and in the founding legislation for national registration adopted in every state and territory in Australia. The Association supported this reform for a number of reasons, most importantly because it will benefit patients and the community.
Third, despite now not requiring a formal comanagement agreement between optometrists and ophthalmologists, the Association does not envisage that the professions will suddenly stop talking. On the contrary, it is likely the reform will strengthen communication between the professions without the formal structures imposed previously. Excellence in patient care requires a strong relationship between treating practitioners and these changes are unlikely to damage that interaction that occurs every day between optometrists and ophthalmologists. Second to prescribe after undertaking therapeutic training; those who have and those with the scope of practice.
05 | Optometry Australia Annual report 2013/14
President’s Report
The Association supported this reform for a number of reasons, most importantly because it will benefit patients and the community.
Regrettably, this has led to litigation by RANZCO and the ASO against the Optometry Board of Australia, which is still continuing but the reform remains operational unless modified by the courts.
benefit patients and the community.
The reforms to prescribing continue the very important evolution to our scope of practice for the benefit of patients. The reforms are a clear demonstration of the intent of national registration adopted by all jurisdictions in both the Intergovernmental Agreement for National Registration and in the founding legislation for national registration adopted in every state and territory in Australia.
Second, the reforms are appropriately targeted to eligible optometrists—the 33 per cent who are legally able to prescribe after undertaking therapeutic training; those who have the equipment and those with the scope of practice.
The Association supported this reform for a number of reasons, most importantly because it will
“
First, we note that the changes do not suddenly mean every optometrist must now undertake this work.
Third, despite now not requiring a formal comanagement agreement between optometrists and ophthalmologists, the Association does not envisage that the professions will suddenly stop talking. On the contrary, it is likely the reform will strengthen
communication between the professions without the formal structures imposed previously. Excellence in patient care requires a strong relationship between treating practitioners and these changes are unlikely to damage that interaction that occurs every day between optometrists and ophthalmologists. Second to prescribe after undertaking therapeutic training; those who have and those with the scope of practice. The reforms to prescribing continue the very important evolution to our scope of practice for the benefit of patients. The reforms are a clear demonstration of the intent of national registration adopted by all jurisdictions in both the Intergovernmental Agreement for
Most significantly for patients, the Optometry Board of Australia released in March 2013 revised guidelines for the use of scheduled medicines permitting qualified optometrists with the relevant equipment and scope of practice to initiate glaucoma treatment without first having a formal comanagement plan in place with an ophthalmologist.
”
The Association supported this reform for a number of reasons, most importantly because it will benefit patients and the community.
Most significantly for patients, the Optometry Board of Australia released in March 2013 revised guidelines for the use of scheduled medicines permitting qualified optometrists with the relevant equipment and scope of practice to initiate glaucoma treatment without first having a formal comanagement plan in place with an ophthalmologist. Regrettably, this has led to litigation by RANZCO and the ASO against the Optometry Board of Australia, which is still continuing but the reform remains operational unless modified by the courts. The reforms to prescribing continue the very important evolution to our scope of practice for the benefit of patients. The reforms are a clear demonstration of the intent of national registration adopted by all jurisdictions in both the Intergovernmental Agreement for National Registration and in the founding legislation for national registration adopted in every state and territory in Australia. The Association supported this reform for a number of reasons, most importantly because it will benefit patients and the community. First, we note that the changes
do not suddenly mean every optometrist must now undertake this work. Second, the reforms are appropriately targeted to eligible optometrists—the 33 per cent who are legally able to prescribe after undertaking therapeutic training; those who have the equipment and those with the scope of practice. Third, despite now not requiring a formal comanagement agreement between optometrists and ophthalmologists, the Association does not envisage that the professions will suddenly stop talking. On the contrary, it is likely the reform will strengthen communication between the professions without the formal structures imposed previously. Excellence in patient care requires a strong relationship between treating practitioners and these changes are unlikely to damage that interaction that occurs every day between optometrists and ophthalmologists. Second to prescribe after undertaking therapeutic training; those who have and those with the scope of practice. The reforms to prescribing continue the very important evolution to our
07 | Optometry Australia Annual report 2013/14
Treasurer’s Report The Association supported this reform for a number of reasons, most importantly because it will benefit patients and the community.
Most significantly for patients, the Optometry Board of Australia released in March 2013 revised guidelines for the use of scheduled medicines permitting qualified optometrists with the relevant equipment and scope of practice to initiate glaucoma treatment without first having a formal comanagement plan in place with an ophthalmologist.
Facts: The Association supported this reform for a number of reasons, most importantly because it will benefit patients and the community.
Regrettably, this has led to litigation by RANZCO and the ASO against the Optometry Board of Australia, which is still continuing but the reform remains operational unless modified by the courts.
First, we note that the changes do not suddenly mean every optometrist must now undertake this work. Second, the reforms are appropriately targeted to eligible optometrists—the 33 per cent who are legally able to prescribe after undertaking therapeutic training; those who have the equipment and those with the scope of practice.
The reforms to prescribing continue the very important evolution to our scope of practice for the benefit of patients. The reforms are a clear demonstration of the intent of national registration adopted by all jurisdictions in both the Intergovernmental Agreement for National Registration and in the founding legislation for national registration adopted in every state and territory in Australia.
Third, despite now not requiring a formal comanagement agreement between optometrists and ophthalmologists, the Association does not envisage that the professions will suddenly stop talking. On the contrary, it is likely the reform will strengthen communication between the professions without the formal structures imposed previously. Excellence in patient care requires a strong relationship between treating practitioners and these changes are unlikely to damage that interaction that occurs every day between optometrists and ophthalmologists.
The Association supported this reform for a number of reasons, most importantly because it will benefit patients and the community.
Second to prescribe after undertaking therapeutic training; those who have and those with the scope of practice.
09 | Optometry Australia Annual report 2013/14
The Association supported this reform for a number of reasons, most importantly because it will benefit patients and the community. registration adopted in every state and territory in Australia. The Association supported this reform for a number of reasons, most importantly because it will benefit patients and the community.
CEO Report Most significantly for patients, the Optometry Board of Australia released in March 2013 revised guidelines for the use of scheduled medicines permitting qualified optometrists with the relevant equipment and scope of practice to initiate glaucoma treatment without first having a formal comanagement plan in place with an ophthalmologist. Regrettably, this has led to litigation by RANZCO and the ASO against the Optometry Board of Australia, which is still continuing but the reform remains operational unless modified by the courts. The reforms to prescribing continue the very important evolution to our scope of practice for the benefit of patients. The reforms are a clear demonstration of the intent of national registration adopted by all jurisdictions in both the Intergovernmental Agreement for National Registration and in the founding legislation for national
First, we note that the changes do not suddenly mean every optometrist must now undertake this work. Second, the reforms are appropriately targeted to eligible optometrists—the 33 per cent who are legally able to prescribe after undertaking therapeutic training; those who have the equipment and those with the scope of practice. Third, despite now not requiring a formal comanagement agreement between optometrists and ophthalmologists, the Association does not envisage that the professions will suddenly stop talking. On the contrary, it is likely the reform will strengthen communication between the professions without the formal structures imposed previously. Excellence in patient care requires a strong relationship between treating practitioners and these changes are unlikely to damage that interaction that occurs every day between optometrists and ophthalmologists. Second to prescribe after undertaking therapeutic training; those who have and those with the scope of practice. Most significantly for patients, the Optometry Board of Australia released in March 2013 revised guidelines for the use of scheduled medicines permitting qualified optometrists with the relevant equipment and scope of practice to initiate glaucoma treatment without first having a formal comanagement plan in place with an ophthalmologist. Regrettably, this has led to litigation by RANZCO and the ASO against the Optometry
Board of Australia, which is still continuing but the reform remains operational unless modified by the courts. The reforms to prescribing continue the very important evolution to our scope of practice for the benefit of patients. The reforms are a clear demonstration of the intent of national registration adopted by all jurisdictions in both the Intergovernmental Agreement for National Registration and in the founding legislation for national registration adopted in every state and territory in Australia. The Association supported this reform for a number of reasons, most importantly because it will benefit patients and the community. First, we note that the changes do not suddenly mean every optometrist must now undertake this work. Second, the reforms are appropriately targeted to eligible optometrists—the 33 per cent who are legally able to prescribe after undertaking therapeutic training; those who have the equipment and those with the scope of practice. Third, despite now not requiring a formal comanagement agreement between optometrists and ophthalmologists, the Association does not envisage that the professions will suddenly stop talking. On the contrary, it is likely the reform will strengthen communication between the professions without the formal structures imposed previously. Excellence in patient care requires a strong relationship between treating practitioners and these changes are unlikely to damage that interaction that occurs every day between optometrists and ophthalmologists. Second to prescribe after undertaking therapeutic training; those who have and those with the