A varifocal wearer comes back unhappy
Two weeks after collection, a patient returns saying their new varifocals are not right. The dispensing optician checks the fit and the heights, and the optometrist may recheck the prescription. The decision is made to remake: different fitting heights, a different lens design, or occasionally a different prescription. New lenses are ordered, the patient is reassured, and the old lenses go in a drawer.
Whether the lab will credit the original lenses under its non-adapt or warranty terms, whether the cause was measurement, lens design or prescription, and whether the same thing happened last month with a similar job: none of that is recorded anywhere useful.
Why remakes stay invisible
- The remake is often ordered as a new job, with no link to the original.
- The cause is discussed but not recorded in a consistent way.
- Lab non-adapt and warranty terms differ by lens and supplier, and have time limits.
- Credits appear on supplier statements, if at all, without a clear link to the job.
- Nobody reviews remakes together, so patterns go unnoticed.
What untracked remakes cost
Every remake is a second set of lenses and a second appointment. Where the lab would have credited the first set, but nobody claimed it in time, the practice pays twice. Where the cause was something the practice could change, such as a measurement habit or a lens choice that suits few patients, it keeps happening. And the patient's experience, which matters most, depends on how smoothly the whole thing is handled.
| Question | Without a log | With a remake log |
|---|---|---|
| Was the lab credit claimed? | Nobody knows | Tracked to the supplier statement |
| Why did this job need a remake? | Remembered by the DO, maybe | Cause recorded from your list |
| Is one lens design causing trouble? | A hunch | Remakes by product over time |
| How long did the patient wait? | Unknown | Dates on original and remake |
The remake log we build
- When a remake is needed, staff open the original job and create a linked remake, so the history stays together.
- The cause is chosen from a short list your practice defines, such as measurement, frame adjustment, lens design, prescription change or lab error, with a free-text note.
- The lab and product terms for non-adapt or warranty claims are held against each supplier, and the log shows whether this case appears eligible and by when.
- A claim to the lab is prepared from a template and its submission is logged.
- Supplier statements and credit notes are read in and matched to open claims, so you can see which credits arrived.
- A monthly report shows remakes by cause, product, lab and staff member, and credits claimed against received.
The log does not decide whether a remake is clinically needed, or who was at fault. Those judgements belong to your optometrists and dispensing opticians. It records what they decided so the practice can learn from it.
What the practice learns
Credits due from labs are claimed on time and checked off when they arrive. Remakes stop being isolated stories and start forming a picture: perhaps a particular lens design, or a measurement step that could be tightened, or one lab whose errors are more frequent. Patients still get the same care, but the practice stops quietly paying for the same problem twice.
Staff training benefits too, because the log gives real, specific examples to discuss, without anyone being singled out in public.
Is this your practice?
- Remakes are ordered as new jobs with no link to the original.
- You are not sure which lab credits have been claimed.
- Remake causes are not recorded in a consistent way.
- Nobody reviews remakes as a group.
- Supplier credit notes are hard to match to jobs.