Aesthetics investigates vetting procedures within the specialty
An investigation by The Times has identified 22 doctors working in the National Health Service (NHS) who were previously banned from practicing abroad.
The Independent reported the doctors had faced restrictions or disciplines overseas for allegations affecting patient safety, which included sexual harassment, stalking charges and an incident involving sexual relations between a doctor and a patient.1 However, this information was not recorded on their General Medical Council (GMC) licences, and they were allowed to operate in the NHS.1 It is reported that 26 cases are now being reviewed by the GMC, and of these, 25 may have worked in the UK previously – although they do not currently hold a licence to practice.
While the investigation focused on those practicing within the NHS, the findings raise alarms for the aesthetics specialty, as the GMC remains the regulatory body that oversees doctors who work within aesthetics.2 In the UK, all doctors must be registered with the GMC, hold a valid licence to practise and meet the expected standards set out in the GMC’s Good Medical Practice to work in the UK.3
As the aesthetics specialty remains largely unregulated, with no mandatory licensing requirements unless the treatment involves a surgical procedure or is carried out by a HCP in a regulated setting, there is a variation in practitioner qualifications.4,5 Therefore, patients are being increasingly encouraged to check the GMC as a marker for professional credibility and safety when choosing a practitioner.6
Aesthetic businesses, clinics and professional organisations within the aesthetics sector also rely on the GMC as part of their vetting process, ensuring that applicants hold a valid, unrestricted licence to practise and have no conditions, warnings, or active investigations listed on their record.
Regulatory response
In response to the findings of the investigation, a spokesperson for the GMC said, “We take our role protecting patients extremely seriously. We always actively seek information from overseas regulators when doctors who have been working abroad apply to register with us. Doctors wishing to gain registration should be under no illusion about their duty and responsibility to tell us anything that might affect their ability to practise safely in the UK – our professional guidance makes this very clear.”
The regulatory body added that it will continue to review each case “carefully and thoroughly,” and where doctors are registered with it, decide what action it might need to take. The GMC assured Aesthetics that it routinely receives information from overseas regulators including by way of the Physician Information Exchange, which has been developed by the International Association of Medical Regulatory Authorities (IAMRA). The GMC also shares information proactively with regulators overseas, including in the EU, where it has taken action against doctors registered with it.
Calls for greater oversight from the GMC
Since the disclosure, there has been calls by the specialty for a stronger oversight and greater intervention by the GMC. Ashton Collins, founder and director of aesthetic practitioner register Save Face, commented, “We are deeply concerned by the allegations reported in The Times regarding doctors facing professional restrictions overseas being able to practice unhindered in the UK. It is paramount that patient safety is not compromised and that robust checks are in place to ensure the public receives care from practitioners who meet the relevant standards of professional competence and ethical conduct.”
Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Wes Streeting, has called for urgent clarification from the GMC regarding its processes for vetting international doctors seeking to work in the UK. Streeting commented, “The public rightly expects that any doctor practising in this country meets the highest standards of professional conduct, and these horrific allegations represent a serious failure in our medical regulatory systems that I will not tolerate.”
Ensuring robust vetting standards
Aesthetic practitioner Dr Aggie Zatonska, who runs a clinic in Surrey and has employed multiple doctors highlights that aesthetic businesses have a major responsibility to conduct their own due diligence. She says the investigations findings are of “Serious concern and emphasises the importance of robust vetting to protect patient safety.”
According to Dr Zatonska, while GMC registration is essential, it is not the only factor that should be assessed. In her clinic, all practitioners go through a rigorous recruitment process, that includes disclosure and barring service checks (DBS), professional references, proof of appraisals and revalidation, as well as British College of Aesthetic Medicine (BCAM) membership for all practitioners joining the team.
Membership to organisations like BCAM can provide an added layer of protection, offering guidance on standards and regulation in the aesthetics sector. International doctors applying for BCAM membership go through a rigorous process which includes registration with their countries equivalent regulatory body, three years of general professional experience and 12 months working in the aesthetic specialty. Candidates also must provide references, enhanced DBS certification and proof of all aesthetic qualifications and training, as well as proof of identity and address.
Beyond paperwork, Dr Zatonska evaluates communication skills and bedside manner during recruitment, as she believes these are equally important for patient safety and trust. As an international practitioner herself, Dr Zatonska relayed that when she began practicing in the UK in 2011, she had to provide extensive documentation from her country of training. These included certificates and qualifications from medical colleges, hospitals or training institutions, confirming her specialty; a CGS; and written statements of conduct signed by the head of the department and her former educational supervisor.
An ongoing investigation
While the investigation is ongoing, the GMC has shared that it has added an alert to the records of each doctor who has been questioned, to ensure they are not granted erasure from the register, and to prevent any licence restoration without full GMC investigation of concerns raised. Dr Zatonska concludes, “Building and maintaining public trust starts with openness and accountability. Transparency should be a daily practice. Trust grows when people see consistent care, professionalism and a genuine commitment to doing what’s right every single day.”
References
- Jane Kirby, ‘Wes Streeting orders urgent review after banned doctors found working for NHS’ The Independent (2 October 2025) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-banned-doctors-streeting-b2837966.html
- General Medical Council. (2025) Our mandate. Available at: https://www.gmc-uk.org/about/what-we-do-and-why/our-mandate
- Department of Health & Social Care. (2025) The licensing of non‑surgical cosmetic procedures in England: consultation document. London: DHSC. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/licensing-of-non-surgical-cosmetic-procedures/the-licensing-of-non-surgical-cosmetic-procedures-in-england
- Department of Health and Social Care, Licensing of Non-Surgical Cosmetic Procedures in England (London: GOV.UK, 2025) Licensing of non-surgical cosmetic procedures – GOV.UK
- BBC News, Licences needed for Botox clinics in cosmetics crackdown, BBC News. 7 August 2025. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czd03ejd28lo
- NHS. Choosing who will do your cosmetic procedure. Available at: https://www.nhs.uk/tests-and-treatments/cosmetic-procedures/advice/choosing-who-will-do-your-procedure/