A mismatch in aesthetic training requirements and practice for the plastic surgery trainee

I am writing in response to the Hallam et al. paper entitled ‘Implications of rationing and the European Working Time Directive on aesthetic breast surgery: A study of trainee exposure in 2005 and 2011’ published in February 2013. I am a year 4 Registrar in Plastic Surgery and I identify with much of what the authors expressed regarding the significant reduction in trainee exposure and operative training for aesthetic breast surgery. I feel this also translates to aesthetic surgery in general. It is often difficult to define what constitutes an aesthetic or cosmetic procedure when surgery is carried out to achieve or restore ‘normal’ anatomy. This leads into discussion as to what lies within the range of normal anatomy. This may then lead to debate over what is considered age appropriate normal anatomy. The term ‘procedures of low clinical priority’ (PLCP) has often been used to describe cosmetically orientated elective procedures with minimal or no physical symptoms. I can anecdotally state that I have seen a reduction in the number of PLCP being performed in National Health Service (NHS) practice since I entered the specialty in 2007. This has been due to the lack of Primary Care Trust funding in the current economic climate. This and the other factors discussed by Hallam et al. (European Working Time Directive regulations and a consultant led service) has resulted in my personal surgical exposure to PLCP being greatly reduced compared to my predecessors. For ...
Source: Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery - Category: Cosmetic Surgery Authors: Tags: Correspondence and Communications Source Type: research