The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Beauty, Aesthetics and Wellbeing (APPG) is a cross-party group established in May 2019 to champion the aesthetic industry in Parliament. It has recently published its comprehensive report following a year-long inquiry into the standards for non-surgical cosmetic treatments. The APPG’s report sheds light on the absence of legal framework in this area.
The APPG identifies “a need for the beauty industry and the medical professions to work together to seek solutions that raise standards and protect the safety and wellbeing of consumers”. This article will outline some of the APPG’s key recommendations which are likely to have a significant impact on all parts of the industry.
A national minimum standard
The report criticises the current lack of regulation defining who can carry out these treatments. At present, procedures can be carried out by virtually anyone and there is no legal obligation for the provider to be insured. The APPG has proposed that both aesthetics practitioners and medical practitioners must be able to prove their competence by passing a minimum standard of training before administering treatments. The report considers how CPD could be used as a mechanism of ensuring this minimum standard continues to be met by practitioners.
Mandatory regulated qualifications
In response to the rising popularity of self-accredited courses, the report calls for stricter qualification rules to be put in place. There is strong support from the likes of the British College of Aesthetic Medicine that high-risk procedures, such as dermal fillers, should be restricted to being carried out by medical practitioners. The APPG recommends reclassifying dermal fillers as Prescription Only Medicines. This change in regulation would likely result in a higher proportion of doctors carrying these treatments out in the future, if non-medically qualified aesthetic practitioners are unable to continue offering them.
On 28 October 2021, the General Optical Council (GOC) launched new ‘Speaking up’ guidance, previously known as ‘Raising concerns with the GOC (whistleblowing) policy.’ The guidance is aimed at helping both individual and business registrants identify where they need to consider the professional requirement to speak up when a patient or public safety may be at risk. It should be read alongside the GOC Standards for Optometrists and Dispensing Opticians, Optical Businesses and Optical Students. It should also be considered in conjunction with the GOC’s professional duty of candour. The guidance is split into two parts, with Part 1 applying to individuals and Part 2 to business registrants.
On Friday 22 October, Baroness Meacher’s Assisted Dying Bill progressed to the Committee Stage after being debated in the House of Lords. If enacted, it will undoubtedly be a seminal moment in healthcare law. It would permit medical professionals to lawfully prescribe end of life medication to terminally-ill adult patients of mental capacity who are reasonably expected to die within six months (and voluntarily making such a request), essentially legalising physician-assisted suicide. Although the majority of speakers were in favour of the bill, Hansard reveals how many members hold great concern for the safeguarding of vulnerable individuals and for the impact the bill may have on the public’s trust in doctors. It is therefore entirely understandable why this issue is prompting such widespread debate.
It has been confirmed that the COVID-19 vaccination will become compulsory for staff that care for the elderly and vulnerable. In enforcing such a requirement, organisations are likely to face a number of issues and potential pitfalls, and it is important therefore to explore the key steps if you are considering introducing compulsory vaccination for staff or those deployed in the organisation.
Last November we reported on Mr Justice Linden’s decision to grant permission for judicial review on all grounds of the UK government’s policies and measures which had a bearing on the protection of care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic. The claim, which relates to patient discharge policy in England, will be heard later this month. In respect of Scotland, recently released information by public health authorities appears to acknowledge some important difficulties there in the early part of last year. This blog explores the key issues in both jurisdictions and sets the scene for the (English) judicial review later this month.
On 16 September 2021, the General Dental Council (“GDC”) announced imminent changes to the way in which dental professionals in England who are the subject of conditions or undertakings receive support.
The Prime Minster has today announced long awaited plans for the funding of the English adult social care system.
This move has been proposed on several occasions by the governments of David Cameron and Theresa May. The present government’s December 2019 election manifesto promised to reform social care but didn’t give any details of how that was to be achieved.
Today’s announcement confirms that extra funding will be achieved via an increase in National Insurance contributions of 1.25% from April 2022 onwards, rather than further contributions from higher rate taxpayers. It comes after yesterday’s promise of extra funding for the NHS to tackle backlogs created by the COVID-19 pandemic. People of a pensionable age who are still working will also have to pay this extra National Insurance contribution. There will also be a cap on lifetime individual contributions.
However the majority of the monies raised by the tax raise will be used initially to support the NHS in the first 3 years, although during this period the social care sector is due to receive an additional £5.3 billion per year. After the NHS backlog is cleared, the government say the majority of this funding will be spent on social care.
In his statement to the House of Commons announcing the plans, the Prime Minister referred to the COVID-19 pandemic having highlighted problems in social care, saying at the outset of the pandemic that there were 30,000 patients occupying hospital beds that could have been better cared for elsewhere. However, we have constantly seen that the process of discharging a patient from a healthcare to a social care setting is very complex, and many factors may affect the speed at which they can be discharged from hospital, not just the amount of funding available. Today’s announcement should not be seen as a quick fix to the complex problems the sector faces.
With the general population living longer and a larger number of adults requiring social care, especially in later life, funding is clearly desperately needed. Arguably the lack of investment in the sector over many years has contributed to a rise in claims and statutory investigations against social care providers. Whilst care providers and their insurers will of course welcome today’s announcement, it will take a long time in our view for any noticeable difference to be seen in the sector on a day to day basis, and for the effect on the claims market to trickle through.
In 2019 the NHS Long Term Plan was published, including the NHS Digital Transformation Plan. It set out the aim of the NHS to change the way in which healthcare is accessed and provided, supplying digital services to patients and digital tools to staff and providing access to joined up patient records.
The COVID-19 crisis has accelerated this transformation and digital developments have been a key part of the response. Most people will be familiar with the NHS App and the technology that has been deployed in tracking and tracing the infection. Anyone watching Chris Whitty’s slide shows will also be in no doubt as to the part that the effective use of data has played in analysing and responding to the emergency.
Against this background, the Department of Health and Social Care has published a policy paper entitled “Data saves lives: reshaping health and social care with data” setting out its vision of the part that data will play in the digital transformation of the NHS, with the declared mission to “ unleash the unlimited potential of data in health and care, while maintaining the highest standards of privacy, ethics, and accountability.”
We recently commentedon the government’s plans for vaccinations to become mandatory for all care home workers. Yesterday, MPs approved this initiative despite a small number of dissenting voices within the Conservative rank and file. Passing with a majority of 319 votes to 246, anyone working in a care home registered with the Care Quality Commission in England must have had two vaccine doses by October, unless they have a medical exemption.
The feuding within the Conservative party appears to focus on the lack of any published impact assessment of the policy before the vote (Health Minister, Helen Whately told MPs this was being worked on), something which many argue is imperative when balancing risks and imposing such measures on an entire (and already stretched) healthcare sector particularly in a group of workers which has a very low take up of the vaccine.
Last week the Commons Health and Care Select Committee published what is likely to be a very significant report examining safety issues in NHS maternity care. The primary focus of the report is improving patient safety by learning from well-documented failings in East Kent, Shrewsbury and Morecambe and the report makes important recommendations on this aspect. A second strand of the inquiry was to review the effect that the current clinical negligence claims and litigation process has on improving outcomes and to consider if changes are necessary. The Committee found that they are and this blog summarises its recommendations on that topic.