Home / Medical Aesthetics
For Aesthetic Practitioners
Nurses, doctors, dentists and pharmacist prescribers deliver most of the UK's injectable treatments, and carry most of its medico-legal exposure. Cleritas gives you consent documentation, training and support built to survive the scrutiny that follows a complaint.
Consent by treatment
Montgomery and McCulloch judge every consultation on what was disclosed and documented. Start with the treatment in front of you.
Injectable
The material risks, contraindications and prescribing rules to disclose and record for the UK's most-claimed injectable.
Read the guide →Injectable
From bruising to vascular occlusion and periocular blindness, the filler risks a claimant will check your notes for.
Read the guide →Emergency
The rare, catastrophic filler emergency, and exactly what your consent and documentation must show.
Read the guide →The Claims Picture
Where the Money Goes
In smaller aesthetics claims, legal costs routinely run to 60–82% of the total payout. One reported £65,000 claim broke down as £13,000 in damages, and £53,000 in costs.
That arithmetic changes how you should think about defence. A claim does not need to succeed to be expensive; it only needs to be arguable. The single biggest factor in whether a claim is arguable is your consent record. A documented dialogue, material risks tailored to this patient, alternatives including no treatment, a genuine cooling-off period, closes claims early. A generic signature page keeps them open.
And remember what sits behind the policy. Aesthetics insurance is not legally mandatory, medical defence organisation cover is discretionary, and insurer policies are contractual with strict conditions, clinical photographs, ten-year record retention. Breach a condition and the cover you paid for can simply not be there.
"A £65,000 claim: £13,000 in damages, £53,000 in legal costs. The paperwork you write today decides which side of that arithmetic you sit on."HAMILTON FRASER CLAIMS DATA, 2025
The Regulatory Clock
In August 2025 the government confirmed a traffic-light licensing scheme for non-surgical cosmetic procedures in England, committed within this Parliament. Consultation on red-tier draft regulations began in June 2026. An 18+ restriction is confirmed. Practitioners who can evidence their consent process will clear licensing; those who cannot will be explaining themselves to a local authority.
Lower-risk procedures under licensed-practitioner standards. Documentation remains your first line of defence, licence or not.
Your core treatments sit here. Local-authority licensing, with non-healthcare practitioners working under the oversight of a named regulated healthcare professional. If that named professional is you, their consent standards become your liability.
Procedures such as liquid BBLs: regulated professionals only, in CQC-registered settings. Save Face logged 300+ liquid-BBL complaints in 18 months, over 55% involving sepsis, over 40% needing corrective surgery.
"From 1 June 2025, nurse prescribers cannot remotely prescribe toxin. All four prescriber regulators now require face-to-face. The direction of travel is not subtle."THE REMOTE-PRESCRIBING CRACKDOWN
Prescribing Under Scrutiny
The GMC's cosmetic guidance has required personal consent-taking, cooling-off periods and no remote toxin prescribing since 2016. The NMC's remote-prescribing ban took effect on 1 June 2025, and all four prescriber regulators now require face-to-face assessment. If your consultation records cannot demonstrate a face-to-face prescribing event, personal consent-taking and a cooling-off period, you are documenting a breach, in your own handwriting.
Cleritas builds those requirements into the documents themselves, so compliance is what your paperwork shows by default, not something you reconstruct after a complaint.
The Free-Form Problem
The consent forms bundled with booking apps, CRMs and product suppliers were written to be inoffensive across thousands of clinics. That is precisely what makes them weak. Montgomery demands the risks material to this patient; McCulloch demands the reasonable alternatives you considered and why. A generic form does neither, and a claimant solicitor knows it within thirty seconds of reading one.
Free forms also age silently. Guidance moves, case law moves, licensing moves, the PDF in your CRM does not. Save Face logged 2,824 complaints about unregistered practitioners in 2022, 69% involving dermal fillers. When regulators and insurers look for the difference between you and that cohort, your documentation is where they look first.
How Cleritas Helps
Case-based medico-legal training for injectors and clinic teams, nurses, doctors, dentists and pharmacist prescribers. What claimant solicitors look for, and how to write notes they cannot use.
Explore workshops →Recurring, structured medico-legal education for aesthetic practice, consent, record-keeping, complaint response and the licensing scheme as it lands.
See the programmes →Your current forms and process scored against Montgomery, McCulloch and regulator guidance, with a written report you can show your insurer.
Book an audit →We rebuild your existing consent documentation with you, treatment by treatment, so your whole team understands every clause a patient signs.
How it works →The complete build: consultation framework, treatment-specific consent suite, cooling-off protocol and record-keeping standards designed for your clinic.
See what's included →Ongoing coaching, document review and a structured first-response pathway when a complaint lands, before you ever need your insurer or a lawyer.
Retainer details →Prefer to start small? Browse the treatment-specific template library, from £30 per template.
Common Questions
Because insurance pays out on conditions. Policies typically require clinical photographs, ten-year record retention and defensible consent documentation, and cover can be voided by breach. Medical defence organisation cover is discretionary. Your consent record is what makes your insurer's job easy, and their willingness to fight your corner is directly related to how defensible your file looks.
A CRM form proves a signature happened. Montgomery requires evidence of a dialogue: the risks material to this specific patient, the alternatives considered including no treatment, and time to reflect. Bundled forms are written for every clinic at once, which means they are tailored to none, and they are rarely updated when guidance or case law changes.
The scheme is committed within this Parliament, the traffic-light structure was confirmed in August 2025, and consultation on red-tier draft regulations began in June 2026. Practitioners who can evidence consent standards when applications open will clear licensing quickly. Building that evidence takes months, not days, and the claims risk it protects against exists today regardless.
Yes. Cleritas serves every regulated professional delivering aesthetic treatments, nurses, doctors, dentists and pharmacist prescribers. The consent principles are identical; the regulator-specific requirements differ, and our training and documentation reflect each regulator's rules, including the face-to-face prescribing requirement now common to all four.
The Medicolegal Readiness Score
A five-minute diagnostic scored across the five pillars of defensibility, consent, records, consultation, complaints and regulation. Free, private, and uncomfortably precise.
Take the Readiness Score →
Founding Cohort
Join the waitlist for first access to workshop dates, CPD programmes and founding-member retainer pricing, or start with an audit and find out exactly where you stand.