{"id":13188,"date":"2026-09-30T21:15:27","date_gmt":"2026-09-30T21:15:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/facesconsent.com\/blog\/?p=13188"},"modified":"2026-10-05T08:21:25","modified_gmt":"2026-10-05T08:21:25","slug":"cpd-aesthetics-training-and-licensing-what-still-counts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/facesconsent.com\/blog\/cpd-aesthetics-training-and-licensing-what-still-counts\/","title":{"rendered":"CPD Aesthetics Training and Licensing: What Still Counts"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

More than 11,800 people responded to the Government’s 2023 consultation on licensing non-surgical cosmetic procedures<\/mark><\/a> in England, and one of the strongest themes in those responses was training. Aesthetic practitioners<\/mark><\/a> want to know whether the certificates they have paid for, sometimes over many years, will still mean anything once licensing arrives. A claim now circulating in practitioner groups and sales pitches says existing CPD will become worthless overnight. The official record does not support it, though it does not guarantee every certificate a place in the new system either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Aesthetic<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

What the Aesthetics Licensing Scheme Says About Existing Training<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The power to license both practitioners and premises comes from section 180 of the Health and Care Act 2022<\/mark><\/a>. From the outset, one of the scheme’s stated aims was to introduce nationally recognised standards for the education, training and qualifications needed to perform the treatments it covers. The Department of Health and Social Care consulted on the design between September and October 2023 and published its Government response to the licensing consultation<\/mark><\/a> on 7 August 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The training section of that response makes two points practitioners should read closely. First, everyone performing invasive non-surgical procedures will need to be competent and will have to satisfy the overseeing authority of that competence. Second, the Government recognises that many practitioners are highly experienced, already work to high training standards and keep their skills current, and it states that it will explore how pre-existing skills and training might be acknowledged when the scheme comes into operation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is the opposite of a plan to discard existing CPD. The Government also lists current education and training standards, systems and providers as one of the things it will examine when designing requirements, which means existing training is part of the starting point rather than something to be replaced wholesale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recognition is being explored, not guaranteed. Respondents asked directly for a “grandfathering” period, where existing qualifications and experience would be accepted for a fixed time after the scheme begins, and asked whether support would be offered to anyone who has to gain new qualifications. The Government recorded both questions but committed to neither.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why Some CPD Aesthetics Certificates May Not Meet Future Standards<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The realistic position is that some existing training will map neatly onto future standards, some will partly count, and some may need topping up. What sits behind a certificate is likely to matter more than its title.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The consultation responses give a clear signal about where scrutiny will fall. Respondents from every group, including aesthetic practitioners, healthcare professionals, local authorities and members of the public, criticised one-day courses, short online courses and how quickly someone can currently describe themselves as a qualified aesthetic practitioner. Many called for training providers themselves to be regulated. When standards are designed partly in response to those concerns, the certificates most exposed are the ones that are hard to verify: short courses with no assessed practical element, no record of supervised treatments and no published syllabus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Training with a documented structure is in a much stronger position. That generally means a defined syllabus covering anatomy, product pharmacology, consultation, consent and complication management; an assessment of competence rather than attendance alone; logged supervised practice on live models; and a provider whose accreditation can be checked. Faces Training Academy accredited aesthetics courses<\/mark><\/a> are built around that model, with small groups, trainers who are practising medical professionals running their own clinics, and hands-on work with live models under supervision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Respondents also pushed for continuing professional development after qualification to become part of any national standard. If that view carries through, ongoing CPD may count for more under licensing, not less, because it becomes the evidence that skills are being kept up to date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The qualification level debate runs alongside this. There is currently no general legal requirement to hold a specific aesthetics qualification to perform most non-surgical treatments in England, and licensing standards have not been published. The Faces article on whether a Level 7 qualification in aesthetics is necessary<\/mark><\/a> covers what that qualification offers and where it is and is not currently required.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How the Red, Amber and Green Tiers Affect Aesthetics Training Requirements<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The 2023 proposals sort procedures into three tiers based on complexity, invasiveness and the potential for complications. The tier a treatment lands in will shape what training is expected for it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Green procedures<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The lowest-risk procedures would be open to any licensed practitioner who meets the agreed standards. Training expectations here are likely to centre on the procedure itself, hygiene and infection control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amber procedures<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Medium-risk procedures would be open to licensed non-healthcare practitioners working with oversight from a named regulated healthcare professional, while regulated healthcare professionals meeting the standards could perform them without oversight. The amber tier drew the least support of the three, largely because “oversight” was never defined. The Government has said it will examine oversight alongside its work on training standards, with particular attention to procedures needing a prescription-only medicine, either for the treatment itself or for managing complications, such as hyaluronidase after filler. For toxin work this sits beside the existing requirement for a face-to-face prescriber assessment, covered in the Faces guide to finding an independent prescriber for aesthetic treatments<\/mark><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Red procedures<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The highest-risk procedures, such as injectable buttock, breast and genital augmentation, are to be brought under Care Quality Commission regulation and restricted to suitably qualified regulated healthcare professionals. They sit outside the licensing scheme entirely, so CPD training in these procedures will not lead to a licence for a non-healthcare practitioner, whatever its quality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The final placement of individual treatments has not been confirmed. The response states that further work is needed on how specific procedures are classified and which practitioners can perform them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How Aesthetic Practitioners Can Future-Proof Their Training Records<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Government is prioritising restrictions on the highest-risk procedures first. A parliamentary written answer on the licensing timeline<\/mark><\/a> said it intended to consult on those restrictions in spring 2026, with the wider licensing scheme following through further consultation, secondary legislation and parliamentary approval. The House of Commons Library briefing on non-surgical cosmetic regulation<\/mark><\/a> sets out the same sequence. The response also commits to weighing a lead-in or transition period against the need to act quickly on public safety. Practitioners should check GOV.UK for the latest status, but the licensing scheme itself is not yet in force.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That window is best used to make existing training easy to evidence. Recognition schemes work on documents, not reputation, so the practical steps are straightforward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Build a verifiable training portfolio<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

For every course, keep the certificate together with the provider’s name and contact details, the date, total hours, the split between theory and supervised practical work, the syllabus and how competence was assessed. For regulated qualifications, record the level and the awarding body. A certificate with no supporting detail is far harder for any licensing authority to recognise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keep a treatment logbook<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Log cases by treatment type, with dates, any complications and how they were managed. The Government refers to acknowledging experience as well as training, and a logbook is how experience is evidenced. Much of that record can be built from paperwork practitioners already complete. Faces digital medical forms<\/mark><\/a> capture each client’s history before treatment, a signed digital consent form<\/mark><\/a> records what was discussed and agreed, and aftercare forms<\/mark><\/a> show the follow-up advice given. Stored together, these time-stamped records show a consistent history of safe, documented practice, which is harder to evidence from memory or paper notes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Close predictable gaps first<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Standards have not been published, but some content appears in almost every serious discussion of aesthetic safety: complication recognition and management, anaphylaxis and basic life support, infection control, and consultation and consent. The response also highlights respondents’ concerns about body dysmorphia and the value of assessing a client’s motivation and expectations, so psychological screening is worth covering. Updating training in these areas is unlikely to be wasted. For practitioners refining a specific technique rather than starting a new qualification, online aesthetics training courses<\/mark><\/a> offer a lower-cost way to update knowledge, while in-person aesthetic training courses<\/mark><\/a> add the supervised practical element that is harder to evidence from theory alone. Buying expensive courses now to meet standards that do not yet exist is harder to justify.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Check insurance alignment<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Indemnity and insurance were named as core aims of licensing from the start, and insurers already ask about qualifications. The Faces piece on why aesthetic practitioners are switching to Capsule insurance<\/mark><\/a> covers what current policies look for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aesthetics Training That Is Built to Be Evidenced<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Licensing will reward training that can be verified: a clear syllabus, assessed competence and a record of supervised practice. Faces Training Academy<\/mark><\/a> runs accredited online and in-person courses taught by practising medical professionals, with small groups, live-model practice and course materials to keep afterwards, so every course adds a documented, verifiable entry to a training portfolio before licensing standards are published.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

FAQs<\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n

Will my CPD aesthetics training become worthless when the new regulations come in?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n\n

No. Nothing in the Government response says existing CPD will become worthless. The Government acknowledges that many practitioners already have considerable training and experience, and says it will explore how pre-existing skills and training could be recognised when the licensing scheme is introduced. Not every current certificate is guaranteed to meet future standards, and some practitioners may need additional or top-up training depending on the final requirements, but “your CPD will be useless” is not supported by the current Government position.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Is there a grandfathering period for existing practitioners?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n\n

Not confirmed. Respondents asked for one and the Government recorded the request, but it made no commitment. It will consider a lead-in or transition period before the rules fully apply.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

When does the aesthetics licensing scheme start in England?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n\n

There is no confirmed start date. Further public consultation, secondary legislation and parliamentary approval are needed before licensing can take effect.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Will non-medics still be able to perform Botox under licensing?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n\n

The 2023 proposals placed toxin and most facial filler work in the amber tier, allowing licensed non-healthcare practitioners to perform them with healthcare professional oversight. The Government has left the detail of oversight for further work, so the final position is not yet settled.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Should practitioners retrain now or wait for the standards?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n\n

Most practitioners are better served by documenting existing training and filling obvious safety gaps than by buying major qualifications before standards are published. Anyone choosing a new course should check that it is accredited, assessed and includes supervised practice.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

More than 11,800 people responded to the Government’s 2023 consultation on licensing non-surgical cosmetic procedures in England, and one of the strongest themes in those responses was training. Aesthetic practitioners want to know whether the certificates they have paid for, sometimes over many years, will still mean anything once licensing arrives. A claim now circulating […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":13228,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1075],"tags":[12,447,10,14,227],"class_list":["post-13188","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-faces-training-academy","tag-aesthetics","tag-cpd","tag-medical-practitioners","tag-treatment","tag-uk"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/facesconsent.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13188","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/facesconsent.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/facesconsent.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/facesconsent.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/facesconsent.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13188"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/facesconsent.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13188\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13193,"href":"https:\/\/facesconsent.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13188\/revisions\/13193"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/facesconsent.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13228"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/facesconsent.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13188"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/facesconsent.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13188"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/facesconsent.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13188"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}