P034 Clarity in dermatological titles: an analysis of service provider title usage in the UK

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Dermatological service providers in the UK can freely adopt various titles to promote their services, often leaving service users unaware of the provider’s level of training and expertise. Current UK legislation only protects specific titles such as ‘doctor of medicine’, ‘GP’, ‘surgeon’ and ‘bachelor of medicine’. A Google search was conducted in October 2024 using the syntax (‘Aesthetic*’ OR ‘Skin*’ OR ‘Cosmetic*’ OR ‘Dermatologist*’) AND (‘Doctor*’ OR ‘Specialist*’ OR ‘Consultant*’ OR ‘Practitioner*’ OR ‘Dermatologist*’) + site: .uk&gl=uk. Incognito browsing was used to minimize location-based and sponsored-result bias. Google was chosen as the primary search engine used by patients. Consultant dermatologists were defined as individuals listed on the General Medical Council specialty register for dermatology. The search identified 110 clinics and extracted 283 service provider biographies. Biographies were analysed for self-­reported roles and qualifications, and cross-referenced with relevant professional regulatory bodies. Among the 283 providers, 124 (43.8%) did not clearly state their professional role or qualifications. The professional roles of 61 (21.6%) providers could not be verified, including 12 who self-­identified as registered medical professionals. All consultant doctors (n = 94) listed their full name and role. Among general practitioners (GPs) (n = 54), 15 (28%) used titles such as ‘cosmetic dermatologist’ (n = 4), ‘skin doctor’ (n = 2), ‘skin specialist’ (n = 1) or ‘dermatology specialist’ (n = 1). Of the 12 dentists, only four clearly stated their role. Five dentists used titles like ‘aesthetic/cosmetic doctor’ (n = 4) or ‘skin doctor’ (n = 1). There were no usages of the title ‘doctor’ by a clearly identifiable individual with no primary medical undergraduate qualification. The title ‘consultant’ was more widely misused, including by 12 trichologists, one nurse (‘skin consultant’) and two GPs (‘aesthetics consultant’). The title ‘dermatologist’ was used by 14 individuals not on the dermatology specialty register. This study highlights inconsistencies in how medical and nonmedical providers describe their roles. While all consultant dermatologists clearly stated their grade and role, other medical professionals frequently omitted sufficient information for patients to verify their registration. Efforts to misrepresent qualifications, such as nonmedical providers adopting the title ‘consultant’, pose risks to patient safety. The British Medical Association (BMA) annual representative meeting 2024 voted to restrict the use of ‘consultant’ to doctors on the relevant specialty or GP register. The authors call for enhanced protection of titles like ‘dermatologist’ and ‘consultant’ through collaboration between the BMA, British Association of Dermatologists and BCDG. Further research is essential to assess the long-term impact of misleading titles on patient safety and perception.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.