|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > December 2004 > LaserMyEye goes into the surgeon evaluation business
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
LaserMyEye goes into the surgeon evaluation business
|
|
|
|
| rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org 2004-12-16, 9:26 am |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> Best of luck in the UK, Rebecca. Any takers yet?
>
> http://www.lasermyeye.org/about/resultsuk.html
>
> Glenn Hagele
> Executive Director
> Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>
> Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
>
> http://www.USAEyes.org
> http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
>
> I am not a doctor.
Glenn,
After all the complaints on this board about misleading subject lines,
I think perhaps you have just taken the prize.
We have neither gone into a business, nor are we evaluating surgeons,
as I should think is more than sufficiently clear from the description
of the RESULTS pilot programme for UK surgeons.
RESULTS is not about LaserMyEye endorsing surgeons (we do not do that
and do not intend to) - it's the other way around. It is about surgeons
and clinics endorsing our proposed standardised method of self-auditing
to assess and track refractive results, retreatments, complications,
vision quality and ocular surface disturbance.
We have both committed subscribers and others who have agreed in
principle. These include several high profile independent surgeons and
a large chain. I am very pleased with the response to date. We have
chosen not to announce any names until early in 2005 when we are
further along with the actual implementation.
Regards
Rebecca Petris
www.lasermyeye.org
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-12-16, 9:26 am |
| Apparently I misread the purpose and meaning of the information on
your website.
I you are going to audit a doctor's results, are you not evaluating a
surgeon?
If you are going to list surgeons who "subscribe" to this evaluation
process, are you not endorsing those surgeons at least to the extent
implied by your evaluation process?
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org 2004-12-16, 9:26 am |
| Glenn,
I'm not going to get into an argument about reading comprehension.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-12-16, 9:26 am |
| Don't argue, just answer the simple questions. You have asked many,
many questions about our organization and how it functions. Why are
you unable or unwilling to answer a few about yours?
I you are going to audit a doctor's results, are you not evaluating a
surgeon?
If you are going to list surgeons who "subscribe" to this evaluation
process, are you not endorsing those surgeons at least to the extent
implied by your evaluation process?
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org 2004-12-16, 9:26 am |
| Hello, boys and girls! Everybody ready for a little multiple choice pop
quiz? Goodie! Here we go:
1. Rebecca's attitude right now is probably best described as
follows:
a) She is cowering and shivering in her shoes at the prospect of the
famed
repeat-anything-however-inane-often-enough-and-it-will-eventually-stick
tactic being directed against her (eg "So-and-so, when are you going
to answer XYZ questions?", irrespective of whether so-and-so has
answered XYZ questions and simply chooses not to be badgered further;
such statement, if repeated often enough, eventually produces the
impression amongst most readers - who see the tactic for what it is
- that most other readers really DO eventually come to believe that
(a) the questions matter and (b) the questions haven't been answered
and (c) the answers must therefore be subject to suspicion).
b) She is furious with Glenn for publicly mischaracterising the
LaserMyEye RESULTS UK pilot programme and is quietly plotting revenge.
c) She knew full well before launching RESULTS UK that Glenn would pull
something like this and apart from the inevitable immediate annoyance
really doesn't care - other than that she thinks it unfortunate for
everyone's sake that he does it.
d) She is highly amused and plans to drag this out as long as possible.
After all, the more threads that mention it, the more free PR for
LaserMyEye, right?
e) She feels flattered that Glenn reads her site so frequently and
minutely that he discovered the RESULTS programme almost as soon as it
was posted.
2. Rebecca should respond to Glenn as follows:
a) Since Glenn is so interested in the RESULTS programme, the
underlying point of which is to popularise the concept of assessing and
documenting changes to vision quality and ocular surface condition as
fundamental measures of the success of a laser refractive procedure,
she should ask him what he has done lately to promote these concepts,
which no doubt he believes in firmly - that is, if he has had time to
spare from writing press releases to defend LASIK from any and all
potential critics such as the British parliament and the NHS clinical
watchdog.
b) Glenn seems to be unhappy with having had questions about his tax
status asked (and doesn't seem to have appreciated Rebecca's
forbearance, either). But Rebecca really should abjectly apologise for
ever having asked any questions whatsoever, promise to hereafter do
obeisance thrice daily towards the alt.lasik-eyes deity in Sacramento,
and go play in her own sandbox, leaving this one in peace.
c) Rebecca should write to Miss Manners (Judith Martin) for assistance
in determining how to handle this dilemma.
d) Rebecca should ask some more questions - of the kind that will
make Glenn cringe in disgust at himself for having provoked her too
far.
e) Rebecca should simply carry on attempting to be professional and
reasonably courteous as far as possible, no matter what Glenn does or
says. She is allowed the occasional retort or sarcastic rejoinder, but
all-out warfare is distasteful.
Glenn's response to this post will probably:
a) Be in excess of 100 lines
b) Contain no evidence whatsoever of a sense of humour
c) Be a continuation (in spirit and/or content) of his previous posts
in this thread
d) None of the above
e) All of the above
| |
| rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org 2004-12-16, 9:26 am |
| Oh, before I forget:
The answers are no and no for the aforementioned reasons and for the
reasons elucidated in the description of the programme itself.
And that's all I have to say about that at this extremely early stage
in the process.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-12-16, 9:26 am |
| >And that's all I have to say about that at this extremely early stage
>in the process.
Well, that is welcome news.
| |
| Simpledog 2004-12-16, 9:26 am |
| I couldn't resist.
E, E, D, but it could go a on the last depending on how correct I am on the
first 3.
Everyone here trying to be helpful, generally is. I just sometimes don't
get it.
<rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org> wrote in message
news:1103163799.603639.300210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hello, boys and girls! Everybody ready for a little multiple choice pop
> quiz? Goodie! Here we go:
>
> 1. Rebecca's attitude right now is probably best described as
> follows:
>
> a) She is cowering and shivering in her shoes at the prospect of the
> famed
> repeat-anything-however-inane-often-enough-and-it-will-eventually-stick
> tactic being directed against her (eg "So-and-so, when are you going
> to answer XYZ questions?", irrespective of whether so-and-so has
> answered XYZ questions and simply chooses not to be badgered further;
> such statement, if repeated often enough, eventually produces the
> impression amongst most readers - who see the tactic for what it is
> - that most other readers really DO eventually come to believe that
> (a) the questions matter and (b) the questions haven't been answered
> and (c) the answers must therefore be subject to suspicion).
>
> b) She is furious with Glenn for publicly mischaracterising the
> LaserMyEye RESULTS UK pilot programme and is quietly plotting revenge.
>
> c) She knew full well before launching RESULTS UK that Glenn would pull
> something like this and apart from the inevitable immediate annoyance
> really doesn't care - other than that she thinks it unfortunate for
> everyone's sake that he does it.
>
> d) She is highly amused and plans to drag this out as long as possible.
> After all, the more threads that mention it, the more free PR for
> LaserMyEye, right?
>
> e) She feels flattered that Glenn reads her site so frequently and
> minutely that he discovered the RESULTS programme almost as soon as it
> was posted.
>
> 2. Rebecca should respond to Glenn as follows:
>
> a) Since Glenn is so interested in the RESULTS programme, the
> underlying point of which is to popularise the concept of assessing and
> documenting changes to vision quality and ocular surface condition as
> fundamental measures of the success of a laser refractive procedure,
> she should ask him what he has done lately to promote these concepts,
> which no doubt he believes in firmly - that is, if he has had time to
> spare from writing press releases to defend LASIK from any and all
> potential critics such as the British parliament and the NHS clinical
> watchdog.
>
> b) Glenn seems to be unhappy with having had questions about his tax
> status asked (and doesn't seem to have appreciated Rebecca's
> forbearance, either). But Rebecca really should abjectly apologise for
> ever having asked any questions whatsoever, promise to hereafter do
> obeisance thrice daily towards the alt.lasik-eyes deity in Sacramento,
> and go play in her own sandbox, leaving this one in peace.
>
> c) Rebecca should write to Miss Manners (Judith Martin) for assistance
> in determining how to handle this dilemma.
>
> d) Rebecca should ask some more questions - of the kind that will
> make Glenn cringe in disgust at himself for having provoked her too
> far.
>
> e) Rebecca should simply carry on attempting to be professional and
> reasonably courteous as far as possible, no matter what Glenn does or
> says. She is allowed the occasional retort or sarcastic rejoinder, but
> all-out warfare is distasteful.
>
> Glenn's response to this post will probably:
>
> a) Be in excess of 100 lines
> b) Contain no evidence whatsoever of a sense of humour
> c) Be a continuation (in spirit and/or content) of his previous posts
> in this thread
> d) None of the above
> e) All of the above
>
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-12-16, 11:10 am |
| Good grief. All I did was wish you good luck on your evaluation
program and ask if anyone had yet subscribed. This is what I get for
wishing you well? I mean really. How many innocent bytes were
harmed in the making of that post?
You have stated that I have this RESULTS program all wrong. Okay, if
it is not a system to evaluate the quality of a surgeon's refractive
surgery outcomes, then what is it? Good heavens, you named it
"RESULTS". What else would it be for?
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| serebel 2004-12-16, 10:08 pm |
| Rebecca has to twist in the wind, she can't answer your question
directly. If she does, she'll upset the whiners on her BB.
SErebel
| |
|
| That site is laughable.
Does Rebecca seriously think that anybody is going to participate in
that program?
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:31:27 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>Best of luck in the UK, Rebecca. Any takers yet?
>
>http://www.lasermyeye.org/about/resultsuk.html
>
>Glenn Hagele
>Executive Director
>Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>
>Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
>
>http://www.USAEyes.org
>http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
>
>I am not a doctor.
| |
|
| I can just see the line of Surgeon's outside Rebecca's door... Arms
filled with all their medical records for her to review and critique..
"Did we do good, Becky?" hehe
Incidentally.. the issue of LASIK being scrutinized in England has to
do with whether or not their socialized medical system should cover it
- which it doesn't and probably never will. No government agency
wants to give away freebie surgeries unless they have to.
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:10:14 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>Apparently I misread the purpose and meaning of the information on
>your website.
>
>I you are going to audit a doctor's results, are you not evaluating a
>surgeon?
>
>If you are going to list surgeons who "subscribe" to this evaluation
>process, are you not endorsing those surgeons at least to the extent
>implied by your evaluation process?
>
>Glenn Hagele
>Executive Director
>Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>
>Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
>
>http://www.USAEyes.org
>http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
>
>I am not a doctor.
| |
|
| I doubt anybody gives a rat's XXX.
On 15 Dec 2004 18:23:19 -0800, rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org wrote:
>Hello, boys and girls! Everybody ready for a little multiple choice pop
>quiz? Goodie! Here we go:
>
>1. Rebecca's attitude right now is probably best described as
>follows:
>
>a) She is cowering and shivering in her shoes at the prospect of the
>famed
>repeat-anything-however-inane-often-enough-and-it-will-eventually-stick
>tactic being directed against her (eg "So-and-so, when are you going
>to answer XYZ questions?", irrespective of whether so-and-so has
>answered XYZ questions and simply chooses not to be badgered further;
>such statement, if repeated often enough, eventually produces the
>impression amongst most readers - who see the tactic for what it is
>- that most other readers really DO eventually come to believe that
>(a) the questions matter and (b) the questions haven't been answered
>and (c) the answers must therefore be subject to suspicion).
>
>b) She is furious with Glenn for publicly mischaracterising the
>LaserMyEye RESULTS UK pilot programme and is quietly plotting revenge.
>
>c) She knew full well before launching RESULTS UK that Glenn would pull
>something like this and apart from the inevitable immediate annoyance
>really doesn't care - other than that she thinks it unfortunate for
>everyone's sake that he does it.
>
>d) She is highly amused and plans to drag this out as long as possible.
>After all, the more threads that mention it, the more free PR for
>LaserMyEye, right?
>
>e) She feels flattered that Glenn reads her site so frequently and
>minutely that he discovered the RESULTS programme almost as soon as it
>was posted.
>
>2. Rebecca should respond to Glenn as follows:
>
>a) Since Glenn is so interested in the RESULTS programme, the
>underlying point of which is to popularise the concept of assessing and
>documenting changes to vision quality and ocular surface condition as
>fundamental measures of the success of a laser refractive procedure,
>she should ask him what he has done lately to promote these concepts,
>which no doubt he believes in firmly - that is, if he has had time to
>spare from writing press releases to defend LASIK from any and all
>potential critics such as the British parliament and the NHS clinical
>watchdog.
>
>b) Glenn seems to be unhappy with having had questions about his tax
>status asked (and doesn't seem to have appreciated Rebecca's
>forbearance, either). But Rebecca really should abjectly apologise for
>ever having asked any questions whatsoever, promise to hereafter do
>obeisance thrice daily towards the alt.lasik-eyes deity in Sacramento,
>and go play in her own sandbox, leaving this one in peace.
>
>c) Rebecca should write to Miss Manners (Judith Martin) for assistance
>in determining how to handle this dilemma.
>
>d) Rebecca should ask some more questions - of the kind that will
>make Glenn cringe in disgust at himself for having provoked her too
>far.
>
>e) Rebecca should simply carry on attempting to be professional and
>reasonably courteous as far as possible, no matter what Glenn does or
>says. She is allowed the occasional retort or sarcastic rejoinder, but
>all-out warfare is distasteful.
>
>Glenn's response to this post will probably:
>
>a) Be in excess of 100 lines
>b) Contain no evidence whatsoever of a sense of humour
>c) Be a continuation (in spirit and/or content) of his previous posts
>in this thread
>d) None of the above
>e) All of the above
|
| |
|
|