The Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners (JCCP) has been an area of contention since the moment it was announced, and it still remains so for many aesthetic practitioners and other professionals within the industry. It's no secret that I objected to so many aspects of the Council at the point of its conception, and for some time after. However, just as they have been on a journey of growth and development, I have been on my own journey with my opinions towards it. The Council is still not a perfectly formed vessel, but what was initially resentment and mistrust felt by practitioners may now be a degree of misplaced anger and misunderstanding.
Difficult beginnings
The JCCP began on a very difficult footing, born out of a recommendation from Health Education England (HEE) in 2015 that a bipartisan group be formed to create standards and qualification frameworks for those practising in non-surgical aesthetics, namely injectable toxin and fillers, laser and light, hair restoration surgery and skin rejuvenation. Despite many of the Expert Reference Group fighting to block non-healthcare professionals from entering into the former (including some within the beauty sector), the recommendation came in the final HEE report that a Council should be formed to include all practitioners, irrespective of professional background to practise at all levels of the HEE Framework. And so, upon its inception, the Council accepted this with some reluctance. Practitioners branded it a ‘turncoat and a facilitator’ for beauty therapists looking to make quick money and undermine medical professionals. However professional protests were heard, which saw the Council suspend access for beauty therapists to Level 7 injectables and fillers.
One issue that was also felt from the outside was that this council was being formed by a sort of ‘Old Guard’ in aesthetics, who, for some time, had assumed a level of leadership within the industry and by default had developed some camps who were followers and other camps who held a dislike of their style or politics. I was very much part of this sentiment, mistrusting a body that appeared to have been formed with little consultation from a wider, more varied net of personalities and groups. I understand that this feeling is still held by many, but I believe that those who are still in the room after all these years are the ones who are able ‘park’ their politics and prioritise nationally-recognised standards and patient safety above all other interests.
Council development
The Council has in fact grown far beyond the handful who sparked it. At its helm is David Sines, whose career is one to be admired with titles of Nurse, Lecturer, Executive Dean, Vice Chancellor and Emeritus Professor among his accolades. Sines recognised the necessity to widen the breadth of experience with varied qualifications beyond the scope of just aesthetics, which is why distinguished figures, such as Anne Mcnall, Andrew John Vallance-Owen and Mary Lovegrove were brought on board—individuals whose experience in patient safety, health and education is extensive. They bring with them independence, integrity, perspectives and networks which are essential to create something hardy enough to achieve the goals we are seeking in the right and proper pathways.
Elephants in the room
One of the biggest elephants in the room was always the fact that the register is voluntary, and those who have been in aesthetics for many years saw it as a re-invention of the wheel, with Treatments You Can Trust (TYCT) and Save Face having gone before, but only making marginal impacts. For those that had either enrolled to or resisted these registers, why should they put their faith in this new one?
In my opinion, TYCT was somewhat ahead of its time, when practitioners had not fully anticipated the hazardous playground non-surgical aesthetics would become, and so there was defiance to volunteer and pay for further governance. Save Face came years later, offering a more commercial experience with some respectable knowledge and resources at the back of it. But even as a profit-making company, it was hard to crack the public's consciousness without constant national exposure. The JCCP is not a reinvention of the two, but rather it is learning from their strengths and weaknesses and has built something that stretches past our small subdivision of specialist practice.
In reality, this is not an ‘elephant’ at all, but a fact that the Council admits is the biggest pitfall of all aesthetic registers, and so they work rigorously to convince the Government to place regulation in their hands. The JCCP has gone to great lengths to utilise some of the best minds in aesthetics, education and healthcare to establish a complex and thorough set of standards and qualification frameworks. By using groups of highly-respected professionals and expanding on the work of HEE's Expert Reference Panel, the Council has devised something exceptionally more robust than has ever gone before and, given the connections it has with Government and medical councils, it remains the natural choice to become the regulator for non-surgical aesthetics.
The education and training competence frameworks themselves, I believe, are not perfect and cause some conflict among existing practitioners; but how often can a set of policies please everyone? However, contrary to popular belief, the council is a changeable vessel, and insists it is a listening council, which we surely have to accept when considering its reversal on non-healthcare professionals accessing the register at level 7 (for injectables), and extensions of consultation periods when they felt the returns were too low to make final decisions.
Communicating and listening
In spite of the many objections I raised at meetings, I was always invited back and, for me, there was the first sign that the doors are more open than I had imagined. Ironically, while the Council is un-mandated by government, there is more wriggle room for change and with greater haste too. However, the problem is that very few practitioners are talking directly to the Council. If you have a will to make an impact, or disagree whole-heartedly with aspects of the Council, then this is the time to tell them.
The JCCP has shouldered a lot of negativity and blame for the sector. One part I think practitioners should consider is the contradiction of refusing to prove their worth to another organisation, but at the same time crying out for standards that differentiate them from the unqualified masses carrying out non-surgical procedures. This feeling is understandable when they have already met the demands of existing regulators, such as the Nursing and Midwifery Council, the Care Quality Commission and the Advertising Standards Agency, but we shouldn't forget that these bodies have historically neglected or side-lined this sector. It could be that, in reality, the acceptance criteria set out by the JCCP might be the most important hoops to jump through to set themselves apart from anyone who ‘picks up a needle’ after a one-day course.
Finally, I admit that the Council is not without its flaws, but it has worked hard to eradicate them. What they have accomplished is not to be dismissed; no other group in aesthetics has secured grants and backing from the Government or signed memorandums from the medical councils. It seems that very few individuals realise the amount of legwork done by the Council, as historically they have not been the best communicators, and ‘blowing their own trumpets’ was certainly never their way. Their journey began as tenuous and tempestuous, but through barrages of criticism they are still fighting for statutory regulations, with little reward or recompense.
Conclusion
My journey began dubious and unimpressed but after several years I am prepared to swallow my pride and say that this is the horse I am willing to back. It is our biggest chance yet to establish a better industry. I am passionate about introducing structure and regulation in the UK, but I cannot strive for these ambitions from the sidelines, which is why I have chosen to work with the JCCP to see this cause through to the end. I hope others can reconsider the potential of the Council and help it reach the finish line. Our chances are greater if we all back the same horse.