Has the call for a register of safe and qualified cosmetic injectors come too late?

Here at Cosmetica Training we offer free advice over social media to anyone who has concerns or questions about cosmetic treatments. The questions range from what treatment is right for them to concerns over looking like Lesley Ash.

Recently, however, we have seen requests for consultations from members of the publicwho have been treated elsewhere and ben left unhappy with the results and the after care offered by a wide variety of clinics in various counties.

Whilst it is encouraged for them to return to their original injector, sometimes faith is lost and they seek help from others.

We were sent a photograph of necrosis in the glabella following a dermal filler injection. The patient advised us that someone had injected her and failed to act appropriately and rapidly. A number of concerns were highlighted to us:

1. No consent form was reported to have been signed. This would mean any insurance held by the clinician would most likely be invalidated.
2. The injector failed to recognise the vascular occlusion. In acting as early as possible measures can be taken to help remove the dermal filler in a hope of reversing or reducing the necrosis
3. The injector only referred the patient to their “prescriber” via sending a photograph of the necrotic area a number of days after the treatment and failed to follow them up further. At this time the damage to the tissue on her forehead was highly noticeable. It is suggested that even after such a delay corrective treatment is applied to aide in wound healing.

If those who were allowed to inject anti-wrinkle treatments in the UK were legally obliged to be on the suggested register then minimum standards of training and experience will be warranted. It is unclear who is the recommended holder of the register or how such activity is to be regulated however.

Clear standards of training will assist in allowing the newly certified injectors to meet the minimum standards of knowledge and experience and periods of mentorship will substantially increase their competency. All of which clearly will lead to better protection for patients undergoing aesthetic treatments and will no doubt raise better standards across the country.

For patients who have had substandard treatments, rights are gained under UK legislation such as Supply of Goods and Services Act (1982). If they have received a treatment not to the required standard they have a right to have it rectified or other such recourse.

In the case of this necrosis questions are raised as to whether the injector took enough due care and attention to not only explain about the potential risks and side effects of the dermal filler treatment, and whether they were adhering to recommended practice with regards to clinical skills and contemporaneous documentation of the intervention.