The End of Remote Prescribing in the UK – What It Means for Aesthetic Practitioners

The New Era of Aesthetics in the UK: End of Remote Prescribing, Progress Toward Regulation

The UK’s aesthetic medicine industry is finally facing long-awaited change. The Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners (JCCP) and the British Association of Cosmetic Nurses (BACN) have issued new guidelines that will significantly impact how treatments like Botox, Azalure, lidocaine, and Hyalase are prescribed and delivered.

Starting 1 June 2025, remote prescribing for non-surgical cosmetic treatments will no longer be permitted for nurses and midwives.

This is a formal policy position from the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), aligning with other healthcare regulators to ensure safer practice across the industry.

Treatments affected include:

• Botulinum toxin (e.g., Botox, Azalure)

• Lidocaine (local anaesthetic)

• Hyalase (Hyaluronidase) for filler reversal

• Other prescription-only aesthetic medicines and emergency kit items

🚫 What’s Changing:

From June, all nurse and midwife prescribers must conduct a face-to-face consultation before issuing any prescription for these treatments — no more Zoom calls, FaceTime, or phone consults. Instead, all patients must now be seen in person by a qualified prescriber before any prescription-only treatment can go ahead. This change applies to anyone prescribing or administering POMs (prescription-only medicines) in an aesthetic setting.

✅ Why It Matters:

The move aims to improve patient safety by ensuring that both physical and mental health assessments are conducted properly before treatments are prescribed. This is especially important in a field that has been criticised for its lack of oversight and inconsistent standards.

🔍 Important Clarification: These Are Guidelines, Not Laws (Yet)

While this shift is significant, it’s important to understand the scope of the change:

• The JCCP and BACN are professional bodies, not regulators. Their guidelines are not legally binding — yet.

• However, they are highly influential. Many insurers and indemnity providers now require compliance with these guidelines as part of their cover terms. If you're not compliant, you may not be insured.

• The guidelines represent current best practice, and failing to follow them could expose practitioners to legal, ethical, and professional risk.

• While some may continue to operate using remote prescribing, doing so could result in loss of insurance, patient harm, or legal scrutiny.

⚖️ The Pros for Practitioners

1. Better Safety Standards: Face-to-face consultations allow for more thorough assessments and reduce the risk of complications.

2. More Credibility for Medical Professionals: These changes help raise the bar and bring respect and professionalism to a sector often seen as unregulated.

3. Stronger Legal Protection: Following updated best practices reduces the risk of litigation tied to substandard care or poor prescribing practices.

   
   

⚠️ The Cons for Practitioners

1. Business Model Disruption: Non-medical practitioners and those operating in salons or mobile setups who relied on remote prescribers may struggle to adapt.

2. Higher Costs: Hiring or collaborating with a prescriber for in-person consults adds expense — particularly for solo injectors or small businesses.

3. Access Issues: Patients in remote areas may experience delays or lack access to in-person prescribers, making the process less convenient.

End of Remote Prescribing

🔧 What Still Needs to Happen

This shift is a step in the right direction, but deeper structural changes are still needed to truly protect patients and support ethical practitioners.

• Full Legal Regulation: The aesthetics industry remains a legal grey area. We need national legislation to regulate who can perform injectables and under what conditions.

• Standardised Training: A unified national qualification or credentialing system would ensure that everyone injecting or prescribing meets minimum standards.

• Public Awareness: Many patients are unaware of the risks of aesthetic treatments or how to check if their practitioner is properly qualified. Education campaigns could make a major difference.

The end of remote prescribing under these new guidelines marks a major shift in UK aesthetics — and while it may be inconvenient for some, it’s a necessary evolution. As pressure builds for statutory regulation, now is the time for practitioners to get ahead of the curve by aligning with best practices and putting patient safety at the centre of their work.

This is the start of a safer, more professional era in aesthetics — and those who embrace it early will be the ones who thrive long-term.