Naming and shaming plans for poor cosmetic surgery clinics

Poor cosmetic surgery clinics could be named and shamed for the first time under new government proposals.

The rating programme could expand to up to 1,000 facilities. Picture: TSPL
The rating programme could expand to up to 1,000 facilities. Picture: TSPL

Health officials believe that extending the facilities which can be rated by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) health regulator to include cosmetic surgery providers will help bolster the safety of these types of operations.

The CQC currently inspects these cosmetic surgery facilities but does not rate them as being “outstanding”, “good”, “requires improvement” or “inadequate” and publish the results online as it does with hospitals and GP surgeries.

Sign up to our Politics newsletter

The Health Department will launch a consultation today to expand the rating programme to cover up to 1,000 facilities which provide cosmetic surgery, offer pregnancy termination services, substance misuse centres and refractive eye surgery providers.

The proposals also involve rating independent community health providers, ambulance services and dialysis units. There are 100 cosmetic surgery clinics among the 1,000 providers who could be rated.

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said: “Anyone who chooses to have a cosmetic procedure should have high quality and safe care – and that’s why we have a tough regulator in place to help people make an informed decision.

“Our proposals to extend the CQC’s powers to rate more providers are an important step forward in improving standards and will help to end the lottery of poor practice in parts of the industry.”

The CQC has rated more than 10,000 providers since 2014 but it has focussed on providers with the most patients. This has included NHS Trusts, Foundation Trusts, GP practices, adult social care providers and independent hospitals.

Consultant plastic surgeon and former British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons’ president Douglas McGeorge said: “This is an arena where regulation has historically been lax and many practitioners can engage in procedures they are not trained or even qualified to perform.”