Voluntary registers no longer have gravitas

Abstract

Journal of Aesthetic NursingVol. 7, No. 3 EditorialFree AccessVoluntary registers no longer have gravitasCheryl BartonCheryl BartonSearch for more papers by this authorCheryl BartonPublished Online:4 Apr 2018https://doi.org/10.12968/joan.2018.7.3.125AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail There was a markedly mixed response to the long-awaited launch of the Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners (JCCP) last month. The House of Lords reception saw the great and the good of the aesthetic sector gathered together to congratulate and applaud themselves, while also recognising the implementation of an education framework for non-surgical cosmetic practice and hair restoration surgery, published by Health Education England, and adopted by the JCCP and its sister organisation, the Cosmetic Practice Standards Authority.The overarching principle of the JCCP is to oversee both patient safety and public protection within the non-surgical cosmetic sector in the UK. It claims to be the recognised self-regulator of the field, the point of access for the public seeking information about aesthetic treatments and, where appropriate, the organisation with which to raise concerns about practitioners and their services. At last, an organisation putting patients first, with safety at the top of its agenda—who in their right mind would want to argue with that?Except something of a backlash ensued just as the JCCP launched; many aesthetic doctors, dentists and nurses were very unhappy indeed at being ‘lumped together on a register with hairdressers, nail technicians and beauticians’. They maintained that this new voluntary register, rather like previous voluntary registers, founded on self-regulation, simply does not go far enough in protecting the public.Just last month, we have witnessed failures of two cosmetic voluntary registers. First, BBC News (Roberts, 2018) reported the failings of the Breast and Cosmetic Implant Registry, launched in October 2016 following the Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) breast implant scandal. This was followed by the removal of Professional Standards Authority accreditation from another voluntary register, Treatments You Can Trust.The JCCP register has several parts, however it is the inclusion of beauticians who are setting clinical standards of competence for those who are aligned with statutory regulators that appears to have caused concern for doctors, dentists and nurses in aesthetic practice. Lay groups have much to offer us in a patient setting—they have contributed to positive improvements in the NHS with regard to whistleblowing, ethics, leadership and transparency. But clinical standard-setting appears to be one step too far, and this has alarmed a large group of clinicians who took to their social media pages to voice their opinions. The majority are deeply disappointed at never being given a chance to vote on this in their own professional membership organisations, namely the British College of Aesthetic Medicine and the British Association of Cosmetic Nurses. They quickly organised themselves into a campaigning group, the British Association of Aesthetic Nurses Doctors and Dentists, and took to the air on BBC Radio 4 to call for a mandatory register with underpinning legislation. On 12 March 2018, they featured on the ‘Botox Bother’ feature on current affairs programme You and Yours to discuss the launch of the JCCP register, and were again invited to speak on the programme on 13 March.If we are serious about safety, we can no longer accept that voluntary is OK. This is fundamentally flawed by the mere use of one single word—voluntary. Nurses are mandated to protect the public, and the Nursing and Midwifery Council exists to ensure they fulfil this duty. No voluntary register will ever be able to exact the same gravitas without relevant underpinning legislation. References Roberts M. Women missing from breast implant register. 2018. https://tinyurl.com/y9cc6g8o (accessed 27 March 2018) Google Scholar FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails 2 April 2018Volume 7Issue 3ISSN (print): 2050-3717ISSN (online): 2052-2878 Metrics History Published online 4 April 2018 Published in print 2 April 2018 Information© MA Healthcare LimitedPDF download