By: Ruth Donnelly
Created on 29th November 2010
On 1st October, the previously strict regulations governing the use of laser and light-based aesthetic devices were changed, meaning that in the coming months we are likely to see a proliferation of cheaper treatments from non-medically trained practitioners. So should we be pleased to see prices driven down, or concerned that the government just don’t care about the risks involved? We’ve tracked down four very different voices from the industry to have their say
Dr Philip
Dobson,
medical
director, LCS
Healthcare:
“As of 1st October the use of lasers and intense pulsed lights in the high street is no longer regulated by the CQC when carried out by nonhealthcare professionals.
This situation is perverse in the eyes of many, in that it would appear that the same potentially damaging treatments will be regulated when carried out by a healthcare professional but not if carried out by anyone else – be they experienced beauty therapist or completely untrained member of the public.
Is this sensible, safe or reasonable? In its initial risk assessment prior to deregulation, the DoH estimated that the cost to the NHS of ‘picking up the mess’ from deregulation would be in the region of £30 million. In the eyes of the Department of Health the risks are perfectly acceptable, therefore consumer beware!”
Benjamin
Savigar-Jones,
sales and
marketing
executive for
Candela Lasers:
“Patients are becoming more knowledgeable, but now we have to address the safety of laser users who are no longer required to carry the standard government mark of the Care Quality Commission.
Until there is a reevaluation of the regulatory process we must look for other ways to lower the risk to patients. From a manufacturer’s perspective, we have to take extra responsibility to ensure that thorough training is provided.
I suggest that when choosing a clinic, you ask if the staff have recently been on a ‘Core of Knowledge’ course. This shows that the clinic takes the business seriously. It could also be an indication of the standard of laser that they have, as the bigger laser companies provide this service as part of their support package.”
Liz Bardolph,
aesthetic nurse
and Acting
President of the
BACN:
“It’s worrying enough that anyone can be trained to use these machines but even more so that nonmedical staff will now be able to treat clients without any external controls.
There have been a number of incidents whereby people have been damaged, but as there is no reliable register of mishaps, many have gone unreported. Indeed, one insurance company reports that burns and skin damage account for most of their claims.
Most IPL machines can remove hair as well as vascular and pigmented lesions. The temptation to maximise a machine’s capabilities may be overwhelming. The BACN is of the opinion that the deregulation of lasers and IPL machines must be reviewed, and all adverse events recorded. This is a safety issue and the public have every right to be protected from potential harm.”
Mr David
T. Gault,
consultant
plastic surgeon:
“Those in favour of deregulation have worked out that the cost of treating minor burns and complications from injudicious treatment is less than that of enforcing regulation.
An adverse result can cause distress long after wounds have healed. In inexperienced hands, scars and pigmentation, or loss of it, occur far too often. In 2009, I saw 13 laser-related cases as an expert witness in legal actions. In the last ten months, the figure was 32.
My practice
is bombarded with emails about cheap laser
imports and case numbers can only increase.
I don’t know whether the number-crunching
which led to deregulation included legal
assistance costs, but I am worried that it will
give some patients a false confidence in certain
providers. Safety must be at the forefront of
these changes.”
