No recall (hopefully)!

[tigerlily72]

I've been for my retinal screening today, which is only my second one, having been diagnosed towards the end of last year.

Last year I had no issues as the lady that did it didn't insist I had the drops (I didn't want them if possible) and it worked fine without. Today, I got a woman who was a bit "off" with me. She had someone else present in the room who she didn't introduce and the woman with her, who I assumed was observing or training didn't speak to me either. I couldn't be bothered to ask who she was.

Unfortunately I blinked on one photo and was almost reprimanded because there were eyelashes in the shot. And then she told me my left pupil was tiny. She had to do some of the photo's again and really didn't make me feel very comfortable although she wasn't overtly rude. One of her parting shots was that if the photos weren't good enough I'd be recalled.

I know it's not a substitute but I've had a very recent eye test and the optician informed me she couldn't see any signs of retinopathy in either of my eyes.

Fingers crossed it's all ok as I don't want a repeat visit and to see this woman again!

 

[noblehead]

Hopefully all will be well and you won't be recalled, is there a reason why you don't want the dilating eye drops @tigerlily72 ?

 

[tigerlily72]

I'm quite squeamish unfortunately and the thought of something being put into my eyes makes me feel "peculiar". It's the same reason I can't consider contact lenses as the thought turns my stomach! My eyes are also fairly sensitive. If my hubby's cooking something strong or with onions, my eyes will start streaming and itching from the next room, even with the door closed.

I know they can and do, do the screening without the need for drops. I don't want to have the stinging sensation and quite possibly blurred vision afterwards.

 

[Dark Horse]

A small pupil means that the camera flash can't illuminate the retina fully. Although a grader will sometimes judge the images as adequate, the chance of sight-threatening retinopathy being missed is much greater when the photos are dark. If the photographer "goes the extra mile" and takes extra photos that are off-centre, the chance of the images being judged adequate are increased as the grader can "jigsaw" the illuminated parts of the images. Even so, the chances of spotting sight-threatening retinopathy are likely to be not as good as when the retina is well-illuminated.

 

[tigerlily72]

Thanks @Dark Horse. That makes sense and accounts for why she took additional photo's.

Maybe I've been a bit harsh in my comments about her . . ?

 

[Dark Horse]

Thanks @Dark Horse. That makes sense and accounts for why she took additional photo's.

Maybe I've been a bit harsh in my comments about her . . ?

Well, she probably should have introduced the other person to you. You could suggest to the screening service that they ask their photographers to do that in future? On the other hand, she did spot that one photo was obscured by eyelashes and took the trouble to re-take the photo. If she hadn't done that, it would have been very likely that you would need a recall.