The landscape of non-surgical aesthetics has changed dramatically in the last 10 years, in both size and nature, changing from niche premium practice to mass market, accessible-to-all availability. There has been a notable decline in the quality of injectors, with a more recent, and seemingly exponential, rise in the number of academies selling profitable, but unsupported, certifications of competence to unwitting students. An industry that was once saturated with rogue practitioners is now beset by rogue, self-styled ‘academies’, which are emerging at a troubling rate.
This epidemic of questionable new training companies has not gone unnoticed. Following complaints by the Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners (JCCP), the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) conducted investigations. The complaints against three companies, Boss Babes Uni (ASA, 2019a), Aesthetics Lounge Academy (2019b) and the Aesthetics Uni (2019c) were upheld by the ASA, and the companies were found to have breached ASA codes 3.1–3.3.
Many training companies describe their courses as ‘CPD accredited’ (c0ntinuing professional development) or ‘HEE compliant’ (Health Education England), both of which claims are not completely transparent. Usually, the CPD services that assign credits to the courses concerned are generic, covering anything from dog grooming to book-keeping and may lack the expertise necessary to adjudicate course material on aesthetic injectables. HEE published several reports ‘aimed at ensuring that people are properly trained in the use and application of any products that they use’ to ensure patient safety is at the forefront (HEE, 2019). The JCCP now has responsibility for designing and implementing a voluntary register to support the implementation of the standards (JCCP, 2019). However, the JCCP no longer allows beauty therapists to administer injectable treatments.
The content of accredited courses is assessed through OFQUAL-approved awarding bodies, such as Gatehouse, Industry Qualifications (IQ), or an established university. Accredited courses can also be found in the OFQUAL directory. Although there are advertisements from questionable training companies for ‘level 7’ courses in aesthetics, they are unlikely to appear on the OFQUAL list.
JCCP board member and Education committee chair, Anne McNall commented: ‘As an educator in the health sector with 30 years' experience, I have also found it quite amazing that people also set up courses without relevant knowledge, competence or qualifications in how to do this—imagine a lay person setting up a course in brain surgery for instance!’ She adds:
‘Whilst I'm being extreme, it is the same concept—you expect people who teach others to be occupationally competent themselves, that is, have confirmed knowledge and competence in that specialism, and in how to teach and assess others effectively to ensure both the practitioners and the people they treat are also safe.’
McNall has often highlighted that one of the biggest issues in training is the lack of structure and uniformity, allowing academies to offer 1-day courses with their own assessment. She says: ‘The JCCP education standards and competency framework set out principles of effective education leading to nationally regulated qualifications, which ensure practitioners are both knowledgeable and competent, as this is required to protect the public. Use of the standards and competencies ensures that qualifications provided, whether in the vocational training, further or higher education setting, all meet the same standard.’
However, it is also important to note that there are equally irresponsible courses run by medical practitioners that are delivered in a production-line style. PIAPA chair, Linda Mather, comments: ‘There need to be rules, there needs to be standardisation, and there needs to be mandatory complications training that is built into the training course. The practice of charging extra for a further complications course needs to stop. I cannot understand how trainers can release badly prepared students out onto the general public. The trainers should offer some ongoing support for students who have shelled out a lot of money to train with them and are often left afraid and vulnerable. Trainers should consider the impact that this is going to have on the end user, the unsuspecting public.’
With the number of academies providing substandard and negligent courses on the rise, the question is: how do we divert prospective students and existing practitioners to one of the few officially accredited courses? On the one hand, the announcement of level 7 qualifications has brought about some resistance from existing practitioners who, having gone through the requisite healthcare certifications, and having developed their experience over years, resent yet another hoop to jump through to prove their worth. On the other, if we do not introduce standards by which practitioners must abide, as well as a uniform benchmark of skills and experience the public can recognise, we may never be able to differentiate the good from the bad in aesthetics.
» With the number of academies providing substandard and negligent courses on the rise, the question is: how do we divert prospective students and existing practitioners to one of the few officially accredited courses? «