This year has been another octennial year for the medical aesthetic sector—yes, those of us who are employed within medical aesthetics are practising and work within a sector, not an industry; although the words industry and sector are used interchangeably, they are not the same. The UK healthcare sector is one of the top five employers globally, employing some 1.5 million people (Nuffield Trust, 2019). Furthermore, there is another health sector, working alongside and supporting the NHS: the private and independent healthcare sector, which, in my opinion, is where medical aesthetics sits.
Last month's publication of the All-Party Parliamentary Group's (APPG) (2021) report into the beauty, aesthetics and wellbeing industry sought to both champion the ‘industry’ and tackle the prejudice that it experiences. It ran a 6-week call for written evidence in June 2020 and invited witnesses to give oral evidence in its inquiry before publishing its concluding report and its 17 recommendations, which were divided into six areas of scope for the Government to cogitate: legal definitions; standards and qualifications; regulation and enforcement; ethics and mental health; insurance; and social media and advertising. I thought that it was promising, until I read the report. They found that there is much good practice from aesthetic practitioners in the beauty and ‘medic industries’—what exactly is a medic industry? Regarding standards and qualifications, the report makes several references to the Health Education England (HEE) framework for training, which is an outdated reference from the APPG, as the Joint Council of Cosmetic Practitioners (JCCP) has had ownership of what were the HEE standards (2015) for some time.
The term ‘aesthetic industry’ is used throughout the report, as is ‘medics and non-medics’, which I believe adds to the confusion that is already present around these titles. Additionally, the APPG is also incorrect in suggesting that dermal fillers should be classified as prescription-only medicines (POM), as they are not medicines, they are devices.
Regarding pre-screening of mental health, I am unsure how the general public feels about being assessed on their mental health by technicians and lay groups who, it is suggested, will undertake pre-screening psychological testing. This is a step that psychologists and counsellors, who are experts in their field, cannot agree on.
They also found that there was poor practice, with no regulatory or legal framework to support the public. This statement is fundamentally incorrect, as those of us who are registrants of the NMC and sit on that register are bound by a professional code of practice. The NMC code (2018) is our legal contract with the NMC, and those who choose to practise outside of that contract will be judged on acts and omissions. Furthermore, if going down the beauty industry pathway, you are also negating your medical malpractice insurance.
I was left feeling somewhat underwhelmed and disillusioned after reading the APPG report and its advice. There is not really anything new in this report that has not been seen in the previous ones that made recommendations to the Government: Donaldson (2005), Keogh (2013) and now the APPG (2021). I find these reports are like buses, wait another 8 years and there will be another one coming along. Meanwhile, while you are waiting, the report and press release can be accessed here: https://baw-appg.com.