Cosmetic Tourism: a Costly Filler Within the National Health Service Budget or a Missed Financial Opportunity? A Local Cost Analysis and Examination of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Cosmetic tourism is a global commodity, but patients seeking treatment for complications of international cosmetic tourism appear to be on the rise. We calculate the financial burden to a single NHS trust and summarise the literature, reviewing the implications of cosmetic tourism and summarising available guidance to assist surgeons in this ethically challenging, but expanding, field. METHODS: Hospital episodes for patients with complications from cosmetic tourism between January 2016 and March 2017 were retrieved using the patient management system. The coding department provided the episode costs. A literature search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE and HBE identifying 273 English abstracts. The abstracts were reviewed for relevance followed by assessment of the 48 selected full articles by all authors and 17 papers contained relevant, new information. RESULTS: Eleven patients underwent management for complications of cosmetic surgery, most commonly infection, with a sum of 29 inpatient episodes and total cost of £259,732. DISCUSSION: Our study illustrates the management of complications of cosmetic surgery carries a high cost. This is not an experience limited to just this trust in the UK. Internationally, healthcare systems are evolving to raise the safety profile for cosmetic tourists, some going the extra mile to accommodate healthcare tourists, reaping the financial reward. Following the examination of the literature, we query whether NHS trusts should heighten their presence as providers of private services on the international market, eliminating numerous medical-ethic concerns associated with substandard cosmetic tourism. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Assessing the effects of changes in care commissioning guidelines at a tertiary centre in London on the provision of NHS-funded procedures of limited clinical effectiveness: an 11-year retrospective database analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this study was to assess the impact of changes in care commissioning policies on National Health Service (NHS)-funded cosmetic procedures over an 11-year period at our centre. SETTING: The setting was a tertiary care hospital in London regulated by the North Central London Hospitals NHS Trust care commissioning group. PARTICIPANTS: We included all patients logged on to our database at the time of the study which was 2087 but later excluded 61 from analysis due to insufficient information. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were the results of tribunal assessment for different cosmetic surgeries which were either accepted, rejected or inconclusive based on the panel meeting. RESULTS: There were a total of 2087 patient requests considered between 2004 and 2015, of which 715 (34%) were accepted, 1311 (63%) were declined and 61 (3%) had inconclusive results. The implementation of local care commissioning guidelines has reduced access to cosmetic surgeries. Within this period, the proportion of procedures accepted has fallen from 36% in 2004 to 21% in 2015 (χ2; p<0.05, 95% CI). CONCLUSION: Local guidance on procedures of limited clinical effectiveness is a useful, although not evidence-based selection process to reduce access to cosmetic surgery in line with increasing financial constraints. However, patients with a physical impairment may not receive treatment in comparison to previous years, and this can have a negative impact on their quality of life.

Epidermal grafting versus split-thickness skin grafting for wound healing (EPIGRAAFT): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Split-thickness skin grafting (SSG) is an important modality for wound closure. However, the donor site becomes a second, often painful wound, which may take more time to heal than the graft site itself and holds the risk of infection and scarring. Epidermal grafting (EG) is an alternative method of autologous skin grafting that harvests only the epidermal layer of the skin by applying continuous negative pressure on the normal skin to raise blisters. This procedure has minimal donor site morbidity and is relatively pain-free, allowing autologous skin grafting in an outpatient setting. We plan to compare EG to SSG and to further investigate the cellular mechanism by which each technique achieves wound healing. METHODS/DESIGN: EPIGRAAFT is a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial that compares the efficacy and wound-healing mechanism of EG with SSG for wound healing. The primary outcome measures are the proportion of wounds healed in 6 weeks and the donor site healing time. The secondary outcome measures include the mean time for complete wound healing, pain score, patient satisfaction, health care utilisation, cost analysis, and incidence of adverse events. DISCUSSION: This study is expected to define the efficacy of EG and promote further understanding of the mechanism of wound healing by EG compared to SSG. The results of this study can be used to inform the current best practise for wound care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier, NCT02535481 . Registered on 11 August 2015.