BACN AND PIAPA issue joint statement on voluntary registers
The British Association of Cosmetic Nurses (BACN) and Private Independent Aesthetic Practices Association (PIAPA) have issued a joint statement clarifying their position on voluntary registers for medical cosmetic practitioners and in particular, Save Face.
The statement said: “These bodies do not have the power to accredit any individual or company with regard to medical competence – this is the role of the governing councils such as the GMC, NMC and GDC. “It is our official position that a practitioner is accredited to practice by their relative governing council and medical insurers. We firmly believe that no nurse, doctor or dentist should feel the need to join a fee-charging voluntary registration body to reassure the general public as to their professional competence.”
The statement goes on to say that it is “solely the role of the respecting governing bodies whether that be the Nursing and Midwifery Council, General Medical Council or General Dental Council to determine fitness to practice and the duty of individuals to highlight when a fellow colleague is failing in their levels of care.”
It talks about new guidelines, under which both the NMC and GMC have introduced measures to address practice within their various disciplines and those who have chosen to work independently. This includes producing evidence of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and training, checks and reflections with a fellow medical practitioner in your specific field and proof of professional indemnity insurance. It also discusses the recent NMC Revalidation Pilot established to develop procedures for revalidating the medical skills of nurses, which both bodies have been involved in.
The statement concludes: “Both the BACN and PIAPA will continue to support members in their choice to act freely and responsibly within the realms of regulation and good practice. We both support additional checks being made with regard to non-medical practice issues such as the quality and standards operated with regard to clinics or premises where treatments are taking place. However having a ‘kite mark’ in this area in no way gives a guarantee with regard to the treatments being provided, this can only come from the governing medical councils. “Any Voluntary Register that is offering guarantees of professional practice beyond a premises check could not sustain this position if this is challenged by a patient. Any complaint would always find its way back to the governing councils. The Voluntary Registers therefore cannot offer any kind of guarantee of patient safety or access to a process for complaints without the approval of the governing councils. “Aesthetics is an independent and ever-evolving area of medicine and it is our individual and collective duty to pro-actively encourage the public to seek information from the official medical registers and empower them with the confidence to ask the right questions over qualifications, training and indemnity. The BACN and PIAPA will continue to work with the government, governing councils and other professional associations to deliver new forms of accreditation that the public can see and that will give them reassurance about who is carrying out their treatment.”
In response to the statement Save Face said: “Having seen the statement issued by the BACN and PIAPPA, we are surprised and disappointed. As a body well regarded and respected, we would not have expected a statement so ill-informed and ill-considered at a time when so many have been working so hard to support improved regulation and standards of consumer safety and education. “It suggests- quite wrongly, that Save Face claims to accredit clinical competence- it does not, we are quite clear on what we do, and do not accredit competence and indeed only accept practitioners who are registered with the statutory bodies as do the BACN, and for the very same reasons described. “We respect and support the role of the statutory bodies, which do not have a sufficient reach – otherwise, what was the point of Keogh and HEE work, work that continues. “It is quite clear and must be understood, that no register can guarantee safety, but like any fit for purpose register, we must do all we can to mitigate risk, educate and inform the consumer responsibly and take appropriate action when standards are breached. “We will continue to invite constructive and honest dialogue, and in the spirit of continuous improvement, will respond proactively to rational and informed concerns and achievable expectations."
