In his May 2001 speech, Tony Blair coined the phrase ‘education, education, education’ when laying out his manifesto for a second term in Government. He said, ‘our top priority was, is and always will be education, education, education’ (Blair, 2001). Blair challenged the educational status quo and placed a duty on schools to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
For argument's sake, let's exchange the words ‘children’ for ‘patients’ and ‘schools’ with ‘aesthetic sector’, and then ask the question: so, who exactly is safeguarding and advocating for the welfare of the aesthetic patient consumer?
Well, for those on the Nursing and Midwifery Council Register, the burden of advocacy and safeguarding for patients rests with us. Lay groups, by which I mean those outside the healthcare registers (for example, nail technicians, beauticians, hairdressers and anyone who claims to be an aesthetic practitioner outside of the health sector), are subject to the same EU and UK consumer protection legislation as every other citizen. However, there is no advocacy or safeguarding requirement for these lay groups; they remain wholly unregulated and unaccountable, functioning within the same aesthetic/cosmetic space as health professionals.
Marketing claims are being made by lay groups offering ‘training’ and ‘education’ to medics and non-medics, and I am grateful that, in August 2019, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled against three of such beauty training providers who had made substantial claims on the alleged training (ASA, 2019a; ASA, 2019b; ASA, 2019c). The beauty training providers promoting these types of courses were providing lip filling procedures and anti-wrinkle injections. Their adverts were banned for misleading their consumers; those who saw the adverts were likely to assume that these establishments were of a certain educational standard. These training course providers used the terms ‘uni’ or ‘academy’ within their trading names and had rulings made against them for misleading advertising.
One of these training providers was criticised for neglecting to detail the minimum standard or qualification required for entry to the course, nor did it provide information on how it would provide the necessary knowledge or experience needed to safely administer procedures or deal with any complications (ASA, 2019b).
This raises the question of what they are ‘teaching’ on these so-called courses—where is the detail, outcomes, objectives or the summative and formative processes, as well as accreditation, supervision, mentorship and continuing professional development?
The Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners (JCCP) and Cosmetic Practice Standards Authority have published educational standards for use within the sector, and that is where we, as health professionals, must be signposted to for aesthetic education. Currently, there are just three educational courses registered with the JCCP. While many are deemed ‘award-winning’, most of the courses available do not meet any minimum educational standards.
It is my view that, as we have now outlawed the stray dogs and lone cats who operate in a vacuum treating patients, we now must urgently turn our attention to those lone training providers who have no established method or means of independent audit or assessment for these courses.
Nurses are proven educators; let's own this space and make education our top priority going into the next decade.