Optimising UK training in aesthetic surgery: A prospective national study using operative logbooks and questionnaires to determine factors associated with trainee participation

Gender parity at the podium in UK plastic surgery conferences

BACKGROUND

Despite the increase in the proportion of female plastic surgeons in the United Kingdom (UK), all-male panels continue to prevail. This article sought to establish whether the genders of speakers at conferences hosted by leading UK plastic surgery associations, the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (BAPRAS), and the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (BAAPS), are representative of the consultant workforce.

METHODS

Data on the gender distribution of plastic surgeons in the workforce over the last decade were obtained from NHS Digital Workforce Statistics. The demographics of invited speakers were sought from conference agendas for both BAPRAS (from 2012 to 2022) and BAAPS (from 2014 to 2021) posted on their association's websites.

RESULTS

The proportion of female consultants increased from 16% in 2012 to 22% in 2022. The average proportion of female speakers at BAPRAS conferences was 16% ± 9% SD that was similar to the proportion of female consultants in practice (p = 0.432). In contrast, the average proportion of female speakers at BAAPS conferences was lower than those in practice (7.88% ± 8.29% SD, p = 0.0032). At BAAPS, 43% of speakers were UK plastic surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the podium speakers at BAPRAS were reflective of the consultant population, BAAPS had little to no representation of UK based female plastic surgeons. Therefore, the conference organisers need to intentionally ensure that representation at podium is reflective of the workforce.

UK esthetics associations: A robust safety net or credibility accessories?

BACKGROUND

Currently, safe practice in the UK esthetics industry is largely reliant on self-regulatory bodies. If these bodies do not maintain high standards of safety guidelines and properly accredit practitioners, patient safety may be at risk. To our knowledge, no studies have addressed cosmetic self-regulatory bodies and their websites on Google, the most commonly used information source. This study aimed to map self-regulatory bodies on Google and evaluate their roles in the current UK esthetics industry.

METHOD

We conducted a systematic search of Google Search results using eight search terms. The first 100 search results were screened against our eligibility criteria. We searched each website of a self-regulatory body for their requirements to join registers, membership fees, and features listed on the UK government's criteria for an effective self-regulatory body.

RESULTS

We identified 22 self-regulating bodies for the UK esthetics industry. Only 15% of registers required an in-person assessment of cosmetic skills to qualify for membership. Of the self-regulatory bodies, 65% did not set clear standards and guidelines for practice. No qualifications were required by 14% of surgical and 31% of non-surgical bodies. The mean membership fee was £331.

CONCLUSION

This study uncovered important information about the self-regulation of the esthetics industry in the UK. A significant majority of self-regulatory bodies did not meet best practices, potentially putting patients at risk. We recommend further studies screening a higher number of pages in a Google Search to scope all other existing self-regulatory bodies, due to the creation of Google "filter bubbles."