What are our weaknesses?
What are the most important weaknesses of international ophthalmology and the ICO/IFOS (e.g., lack of organizational visibility and financial support)?
posted by Bruce Spivey at 2:45 PM
ICO/IFOS Strategic Planning:
Forum on the Future
(To contribute your ideas, click on "comments" below any question.)
33 Comments:
The major weakness is probably the perception of ICO by the ophthalmologists. They see the ICO as a group of people in funny dresses who love taking the front seat in opening ceremonies at congresses and give themselves medals. Till a few years ago the major function of ICO was to decide where the next congresses would take place. The ophthalmologists are unsufficiently aware of the various initiatives started the last years. The perception is slowly changing. Although the last WOC was a major success it still attracted far less people than the American Academy. One has to question the value of such world congresses. Should the energy of the council not be more directed to punctual programmes, we have a number of excellent examples such as the fellowship programme, the ICO tests, the work of the education committee.There is a need of having closer contacts with WHO and major NGO's such as CBM
25 April, 2006 09:39
The greatest weakness is lack of focus. I feel that ICO can make a major difference to control blindness through active engagement in the entire Ophthalmology Education process at all levels-Residency, fellowship, CME and shorter versions to enhance knowledge and skills. The entire developing world needs strengthening of Residency training, which I believe, will have a great long term impact than any thing else we do.
26 April, 2006 10:39
- Poor understanding by the Ophthalmologists of the role of ICO and its activities.
- Poor participation of ICO in International and National events and Programs
26 April, 2006 10:42
In my opinion the most important weakness of international ophthalmology and
the ICO/IFOS is the lack of direct contact with the practicing ophthalmologists. We are in contact with the national societies and leaders but not with the ophthalmologists who are actually living with the problems and within the problems. Perhaps we can 1. Get in touch with them personally via email. 2. Create a discussion group via internet.
27 April, 2006 02:19
The ICO is a very well recognized institution amongst the residents, thanks to the high quality of the examinations.This is because they percieve a direct benefit to them. Doing similar " on the field" projects and popularizing their results will make the ophthalmology world sit up and take notice. Probably this all means, that we have to go beyond setting policies alone and prioritize action plans.
27 April, 2006 06:38
We are a VIRTUAL organization, with little funding, and little recognition by the national societies we represent. These are two major obstacles to having the impact this devoted group of ICO members could have, even with present foci of interests.
27 April, 2006 08:12
Unreasonable expectations will slow the growth of any organization. National boundaries, cultures, languages and travel all impede the rapid growth of international societies. People like to work with their local friends and projects. However, globalization and the internet provide new ways to interact. Focusing on reasonable, achievable near term goals can give successes that will lead to long term successes.
27 April, 2006 10:55
Lack of an organizational structure appropriate for the expanded tasks of the organization.
Limited visibility and financial resources.
Limited communication with multinational ophthalmology organizations and members of IFOS.
28 April, 2006 09:58
Although the ICO's ideas and orientation are creditable, the work of ICO is not well known.
We should notify the aim and goal of ICO to the people who are concerned about eye care all over the world.
28 April, 2006 16:35
overall I think the ICO is doing a good job and has done so for 150 years more or less. However, the times they are a changing. If ophthalmology is going to continue to provide the leadership that it aspires to and certainly it should provide, we need to get ourselves on a proper and professional footing. We need proper funding and infrastructure to run a full time office and to enable our representatives to participate in all the meetings that they should. We will not survive if we stay as a volunteer organiztion with people paying their own costs.
28 April, 2006 16:45
The weaknesses are:
1. Lack of organizational
structures, such as only a few
office clerks, no President's
special assistant
2. Poor financial resources
3. Lack of penalty to IFOS
membership which did not pay
Dues.
4.ICO is Not a truly world-wide
organization.
5.Not a really NGO, but a somewhat
politically-involved
organization
6.Too many meetings around the
world,even the WOC will be held
every 2-years interval
28 April, 2006 19:56
Lack of political effective communication
Lack of effective programs/activities that would be recognized as needed and priority by them
Lack of a small but effective multinational group that effectively lead the core message to the National more critical organizations and supra national societies. After listening to them.
We have too many good ideas and little implementation.
Lack of attention to the needs of the ophthalmic organizations.
Ex: prevention of blindness is not a priority for most of the ophthalmologists.
Lack of involvement of ophthalmologists with great political leadership
Lack of good products
Concentration of political power in the hands of "old professors"
Old political structure of the ICO as well as the exec comm.
Should be reshaped as well as the by-laws to make it more representative, modern and effective. The change in the by-law is painful but necessary and
would lead to a political involvement of the Nat and Supranational societies with political awakening of many.
01 May, 2006 16:21
The international organisation are too far away from the ophthalmologist. The doctor in his office does not feel concerned with International ophthalmology.
Several possibilities could be explored : - give international titles, like the European do
- Have programs running in the individual countries
- Involve more the local ophthalmologists, like for the elections of the ICO
02 May, 2006 04:08
1. Resources still very disparate
2. Cultural needs/ differences probably still not defined clearly enough
3. Turf issues may prevent progress
02 May, 2006 11:14
I think that National Societies have insufficient knowledge of the role of ICO/IFOS. Probably, ICO should organize 1 days meetings with representatives of a few National Societies and create a closer interaction with them. This could clarify to the National Societies what they can expect from ICO/IFOS.
02 May, 2006 11:20
I agree with:
"The international organisation are too far away from the ophthalmologist. The doctor in his office does not feel concerned with International. ophthalmology."
I also agree with the comment and suggestion made by Emilio Campos: "think that National (and even International Societies) have insufficient knowledge of the role of ICO/IFOS. Probably, ICO should organize 1 days meetings with representatives of a few National Societies and create a closer interaction with them. This could clarify to the National Societies what they can expect from ICO/IFOS.
02 May, 2006 14:36
There are two kinds of Opthalmology (or Medicine, or whatsoever), that of richer people (or richer countries) and that of poorer people (or poorer countries). The access of poorer people to the richer’s Opthalmology seems to be our most crucial challenge. Unfortunately this seems to be part of a more general way of life and network in which everyone of us is inserted.
04 May, 2006 06:08
(From a pediatric ophthalmology viewpoint)
There is a regrettable duplication of certain activities done by ICO and IFOS that have already been done by other organizations. This is obviously not done on purpose, but it is important that there be an information exchange between different organizations to avoid duplicating what exists, which would free up time to do other activities.
It is always easier to do a project that one has control over, but if it is to be disseminated to the greatest number of individuals, then good communication is key. I appreciate that this is exceedingly difficult to achieve, but I believe that more effort should be made in this area. This takes time and effort, but in the long run it is worthwhile.
08 May, 2006 08:01
The international organizations are too far away from the practicing ophthalmologists. To fill this gap the local (national) organizations should be involved more in the major priorities (e.g. prevention of blindness, screenings, etc..)
08 May, 2006 08:24
Lack of visibility in the regional meetings and congresses, especially in the national meetings.
08 May, 2006 15:37
1. Lack of financial resources to meet mission.
2. Relation of ICO to national organizations and super national organizations.
3. Institutional memory – turnover of leaders in voluntary organizations (need for stable staff and significant budget in infrastructure).
4. Fundamental nature of voluntary organizations (“herding cats”).
5. Need for credibility with governments – NGO’s and other organizations.
08 May, 2006 17:00
I agree with the comments that drawbacks include a poorer understanding by ophthalmologists of the role of the ICO/IFOS and its activities and the lack of direct contact with practicing ophthalmologists, at least in the United States. In general, outside of the knowledge about the World Congress, the organization itself has a low presence in the United States. Part of this may have been due to the fact that the U.S. has its own establishments and everything is duplicated. However, with increasing globalization and the gradual equalization of standards throughout the world, less and less reduplication is necessary and we should just strive to have at least some areas where the best organization and material can be found for everyone.
There is a perception that the ICO/IFOS is being primarily oriented toward public health and that there is little research except perhaps in epidemiology. This is another reason why it would be good for the organization to team up with research organizations in order to broaden its sights and goals, particularly in view of the unprecedented revolutionary changes which are going to occur in the future because of genetics, proteomics, and nanotechnology.
The organization has revised its website, revised its goals, is busy reorienting itself, expanding its programs, and becoming more inclusive and modernized. However, this achievement has not filtered down to the level of general knowledge and needs to be brought to the awareness of more ophthalmologists particularly those ophthalmologists who have influence in various organizations both in the United States and in the rest of the world.
I don't think we should worry about how large the World Congress is compared to the Academy since the Academy is the largest meeting in the world. The number of people attending the World Congress has been increasing steadily. There were 6,000 in Singapore and 12,000 in Brazil and there may be even more in Hong Kong. It is really the quality of the meeting and the number of people that it attracts from other areas that counts, but we should also realize that because of the proliferation of meetings, the Congress is and should be held in conjunction with a major national meeting so as to attract the numbers of ophthalmologists who would be attending that particular national meeting in the first place.
Finally questions about how money is raised and where it goes have been raised. Perhaps a greater public accountability should be visible.
08 May, 2006 18:14
Very big and diffuse organisation with limited authority (but many good intentions!)
09 May, 2006 01:48
The most important weaknesses of international ophthalmology are inherent to the lack of harmonization of education in ophthalmology, making it very difficult for the ICO to influence the politicians and decision makers in each continent. Besides, there exists interference with governmental regulations and industry marketing.
So efforts should be done to promote and give time and guidelines for those continents willing to harmonize education in ophthalmology worldwide improving by this the mobility of the MDs, the trainees, the teachers, the researchers and the patients.
10 May, 2006 01:23
- Insufficient contact, communication and relationship with IFOS organizations and with supranational societies
- Lack of plan for leadership development and succession
11 May, 2006 01:54
Financial suport
11 May, 2006 10:31
The most important weaknesses of Internation ophthalmology are:
(1) Its inevitable size and diffuseness.
(2) Its lack of true authority.
(3) Its financial weakness.
Because of these the organisation may find it difficult to reach the people in the world who most need help as they may be too poor to get their voices heard or are sequestrated by local political, tribal, National or International barriers.
31 May, 2006 02:14
Lack of representativity
Lack of visibility
02 June, 2006 23:07
turf warfare between ophthalmologists themselves and optometrists.
05 June, 2006 15:31
I think the ICO has made enourmous gains in the last decade. When I started my career, my professional organisation designated a representative to the ICO, but little more was heard. It was viewed, as one contributor said, as giving medals to each other and organising the next international congress.
Now, the committees developing the various resources, especially in education and training, have made the ICO much more relevant to ophthalmologists, especially those in training, and in the developing world.
The problem is transmitting this relevance down to the ophthalmologists. The ICO cannot do this directly, but should be convincing the professioal organisation members of IFOS to spread the awareness to their membership of what is available from ICO, and what work is being done. This will promote understanding and respect for the ICO and its work, and will engender support for the ICO both directly and back through the professional bodies.
This increased understanding and appreciation of what ICO has done and is doing should translate into financial support, especially from the developed world, and lead to the development of a more professional secretariate and body.
05 June, 2006 19:11
DOG - Deutsche Ophthalmologische Gesellschaft, German Society of Ophthalmology:
The most important weaknesses of international ophthalmology and the ICO/IFOS might be potentially the lack of organizational structure within the member states. As a result this might lead also to a certain lack of organizational visibility as you have suggested.
07 June, 2006 04:20
1. The strength is some what still too loose
2. Lack of plan for leadership development and succession
3. No active plan of eye care for the people in undeveloped countries.
4. Lack of transparency for major decision-making(better refer to the ARVO model)
5. Lack of financial support
14 June, 2006 23:01
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
11 September, 2008 12:45
Post a Comment
<< Home