HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-09-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Glaucoma

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (15:54): Glaucoma is an eye disease which causes irreversible loss of vision due to damage to the optic nerve. Two in every 100 Australians will develop glaucoma in their lifetime, and 50 per cent of those people with glaucoma do not know they have it. Luckily, with regular eye tests and proper detection, there is treatment available to successfully manage the condition with eyedrops, laser treatment, surgery or a combination of the three to prevent escalation and eventual loss of sight.

My constituent, Mr Ron Stone, was not fortunate enough to have received adequate care to properly identify, diagnose, refer or treat his glaucoma because an appointment request to the Royal Adelaide Hospital from Modbury Specsavers was never received. Mr Stone is now legally blind. His driving privileges have been removed and he is no longer capable of doing many of his usual activities. He cannot drive his wife, who has Parkinson's, to the medical appointments she needs and he cannot read the newspaper, watch TV, or see his beautiful grandchildren clearly.

Mr Stone attended a regular appointment at Specsavers Tea Tree Plaza on 28 June 2017. He saw an optometrist who is no longer in Australia or working for the Specsavers franchise. The optometrist advised Mr Stone of the early signs of his glaucoma with an eye pressure reading of 27. I am told 27 is a high reading and eyedrops should have been immediately prescribed. If the optometrist was not certified to provide a script, another optometrist at the store should have been made aware and the script immediately written for Mr Stone as a matter of urgency. This unfortunately did not occur.

Mr Stone was advised he would be referred to a specialist ophthalmologist at the Royal Adelaide Hospital and, if he did not hear back from the hospital in three months, Mr Stone was required to contact the optometrist again. Mr Stone tells me he was not informed of the urgency of this matter and, on examination of all the documentation, it appears his deteriorating eyesight was not referred to the Royal Adelaide Hospital as an urgent issue.

It is not a secret our hospitals have long waiting lists. In fact, I was told recently there are waiting lists to get on the waiting lists. More baffling was that Mr Stone's referral was sent by fax, as the Royal Adelaide Hospital apparently only accepts referrals by fax. Even in 2017, we lived in a digital age.

Three months passed and, as Mr Stone had not heard anything, he returned to Specsavers to find out what had happened to his referral. The Royal Adelaide Hospital advised them they had never received the referral. Specsavers had not confirmed with the RAH whether they had received the referral when it was originally sent in June, nor did they follow up at any other time.

Since his first consultation, Mr Stone's intraocular pressure had increased further to an alarming level and another referral was sent to the Royal Adelaide Hospital marked as urgent. This time the RAH responded and somehow Mr Stone was placed on a non-urgent waiting list, another terrible problem for Mr Stone. Mr Stone eventually saw a specialist at the RAH some five months after his glaucoma was diagnosed and in need of urgent attention. Mr Stone needed two operations at the RAH and was told this five-month delay in treatment had made a significant contribution to his loss of site, and another two-month wait would have resulted in complete blindness.

Mr Stone's loss of sight is due to negligence, as the first consultation should have triggered the administering, prescribing or providing of an urgent prescription for eyedrops; a follow-up on the first referral sent to the RAH; informing Mr Stone of the urgency for treatment of his glaucoma and the risk of delay; the provision of alternative referrals to another hospital or specialist in the interim; and compliance with Specsavers' own advice and both Specsavers and national legislation and guidelines regarding glaucoma.

In seeking a remedy for this entirely preventable issue, Mr Stone received what can only be described as an insulting offer from Specsavers of a $100 discount on his next glasses. This is not acceptable. Mr Stone should be compensated for the poor treatment he received at Specsavers which, on the kindest of assessments of events, neglected their duty of care to this customer. This particular franchise and all other chains like it need to be held accountable for the provision of the highest care and best practice to prevent similar occurrences. While Mr Stone's situation cannot be remedied, it cannot be allowed to happen again.

It saddens me to know this has happened to one of my constituents. Guidelines are in place for a reason. The outcome of not treating glaucoma is well documented. Mistakes can happen, but in situations such as these, where the consequences can be life changing or life threatening, there must be failsafe systems in place, much as we have seen put in place since the problems with chemotherapy doses.

Along with my colleague the Hon. Frank Pangallo, I will continue to fight for Mr Stone and ensure that all avenues are explored to see he is properly compensated for his loss of sight and to ensure all my constituents are properly cared for and never placed in such a dreadful situation.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT