Mandatory regulation of our sector remains a myth

Abstract

Journal of Aesthetic NursingVol. 6, No. 9 EditorialsFree AccessMandatory regulation of our sector remains a mythNatasha DevanNatasha DevanSearch for more papers by this authorNatasha DevanPublished Online:7 Nov 2017https://doi.org/10.12968/joan.2017.6.9.457AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail No matter who you make conversation with in aesthetics, there is always one topic of discussion that is inescapable—regulation. Over the past few years, Health Education England (HEE), the Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners (JCCP), and its body for setting standards, the Cosmetic Practice Standards Authority (CPSA), have dedicated an immense amount time and effort to establishing aesthetic medicine as a reputable branch of healthcare. But complying with HEE's education and qualification requirements and registering with the JCCP is voluntary, and the flurry of recommendations from Government-endorsed bodies has caused much confusion.HEE proposed that those who wish to provide cosmetic injectables have to be qualified at ‘level 7’. As a result, several training companies set up so-called level 7, ‘accredited’ courses for dermal fillers and botulinum toxin. However, during a panel discussion at Aesthetic Medicine North, interim executive support for the JCCP Paul Burgess said (Aesthetic Business Transformations (ABT), 2017): ‘There are thousands of programmes out there offering a level 7 qualification. It comes with a major health warning—you must check whether it is an officially recognised qualification or not.’Formally accredited courses will be listed on the JCCP's register for education and training providers, but this can only be put in place when the CPSA's standards have been finalised. The standards for non-surgical cosmetic procedures were published in draft form for consultation in September (CPSA, 2017a), and the deadline for comments has now passed; however, the JCCP is welcoming further submissions.There are many aspects of the standards that should be celebrated. As a publication founded on evidence-based practice, the Journal of Aesthetic Nursing (JAN) fully supports the importance placed on data collection for procedures and adverse events. JAN also welcomes the focus on working as a team, as opposed to practising in isolation as so many do. As a first draft, however, there is much room for improvement.The proposed supervision matrix (CPSA, 2017b) suggests that non-prescribing nurses need to be supervised at all times (i.e. immediately available within the premises, with the ability to intervene in the case of a procedure-related complication, adverse event or emergency) when administering botulinum toxin. This will have a drastic impact on the way these nurses, who may have been practising aesthetics for decades without supervision, work, and could put them off from engaging with the standards as a whole.As registered health professionals, nurses, doctors and dentists are bound by their relevant regulatory body's code of conduct, which requires them to, as the CPSA (2017a) standards require, ‘have strong moral principles and act with honesty and integrity’. Non-health professionals, on the other hand, are not regulated and therefore will not be held accountable for complying with the need to practise ethically and prioritise the patient's best interests over financial gain.Although mandatory regulation may arise in the future, at present it does not exist in any shape or form. As Burgess said (ABT, 2017): ‘Nobody has to take these qualifications, and you can just carry on as you are if that's what you want to do’. Whether you choose to embrace the new standards or not, you should always practise ethically and responsibly, and be relentless with raising standards. References Aesthetic Business Transformations. Facebook live video post (23 October 2017). 2017. http://tinyurl.com/y7ljnu56 (accessed 27 October 2017) Google ScholarCosmetic Practice Standards Authority. CPSA clinical and practice standards. 2017a. http://tinyurl.com/yd3dx783 (accessed 27 October 2017) Google ScholarCosmetic Practice Standards Authority. CPSA supervision matrix. 2017b. http://tinyurl.com/ybfwchz6 (accessed 27 October 2017) Google Scholar FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails 2 November 2017Volume 6Issue 9ISSN (print): 2050-3717ISSN (online): 2052-2878 Metrics History Published online 7 November 2017 Published in print 2 November 2017 Information© MA Healthcare LimitedPDF download