The number of unsatisfactory outcomes and injuries in patients receiving cosmetic dermatologic treatments increases significantly when performed by non-physician providers, a study published recently in Dermatologic Surgery suggests.
The study found that due to the increasing interest among consumers for cosmetic procedures – as evidenced by the 2018 ASDS Consumer Survey on Cosmetic Dermatologic Procedures – non-physicians are meeting this demand in both medical and non-medical settings.
Acknowledging this, the study sought to examine the outcomes of cosmetic procedures performed by both physicians and non-physicians and determine the post-treatment perspectives of patients and physicians. The authors (ASDS members Anthony M. Rossi, MD, Brian P. Hibler, MD, and Lynn A. Drake, MD; and Britney Wilson, BA, MBS) administered internet-based surveys to cosmetic procedure patients and physician members of ASDS.
The top procedures for which respondents used non-physicians were laser hair removal, microdermabrasion, and chemical peels.
The study found that the majority of procedures by non-physicians took place outside a traditional office setting, such as at a medical spa (“medspa”). Burns and discoloration were the most common events reported from treatments by non-physicians and were found to occur at a higher rate than in those who had procedures performed by physicians, a media release from the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) explains.
Although the number of adverse events reported overall was low, the study indicates that it is possible most complications may go unreported by patients, as evidenced by the higher number of complications ASDS members reported treating. Loose regulatory requirements may contribute to a failure to report all adverse events.
As a result of this study, member request and lax regulatory oversight of cosmetic medical procedures, ASDSA developed new model legislation aimed at making medspas safer, known as the Medical Spa Safety Act.
“Our study found that board certification and/or level of licensure is a top factor for patients when choosing a provider for their cosmetic procedure,” Rossi says.
“Patients believe when they go to a medical spa that physicians are on-site and supervising. We believe this legislative model will encourage states to provide medical oversight and inform patients on who is taking of them.”
Dermatologists receive over 12 years of formal and hands-on medical education. ASDSA supports the best possible patient outcomes, which include minimally invasive cosmetic procedures. This study pointed out the most common complications – burns and misplacement of a filler product – occurred when performed by non-physicians, which may reflect deficiencies in anatomy knowledge, injection technique and the selection of appropriate patient cases, according to the study.
“We expect to see a growing number of patients seeking cosmetic procedures and want to ensure their safety in the physician office or medspa,” Rossi states, in the release.
[Source(s): American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, PRWeb]
Interesting article covering an important study. There are a few grammatical errors (eg. it should be anatomy instead of autonomy) and at least one factual error Medical training for most US dermatologists is eight years not twelve) in the article.
The data collection method by the authors gives only a limited perspective that should not be the primary basis for a Medical Spa Safety Act.
First, it is important to be aware of and acknowledge the facts about Aesthetic medicine in the US today. The reality is the vast majority of non-surgical aesthetic procedures (injectables, laser and light and other energy based skin and body contouring treatments) are being done by non-physicians. Second, the two primary aesthetic oriented specialties (dermatology and plastic surgery) delegate the same aesthetic procedures to non-physicians they employ. Third, the majority of the training of these procedures is done by non-physicians. Fourth, a large and growing percentage of these treatments are being provided in settings other than doctors offices. Fifth, the majority of people receiving these procedures are never seen by a physician. Sixth, it is most likely that most State Medical Boards are unaware of the real picture of what treatments are being provided and by whom in their respective states.
Finally, the scope of the real situation vis-à-vis complications would entirely miss and under report the two most common complications of aesthetic procedures: lack of result and undesirable aesthetic outcome, both of which negatively impact all aesthetic practitioners.
Two points are clear: more data needs to be collected to give a more accurate picture of Aesthetic medicine practices in the US and, the ASDS needs to seek much broader input from outside its membership and from Industry before finalizing a Medical Spa Safety Act.