A public interest verification tool No clinic is named on this site
Skin Clinic Finder
We do not list clinics. We publish the procedure for checking one yourself, using public registers you can open in another tab.

Home / Editorial standards

The publication

The rules this publication holds itself to

Published so that they can be used against us. If something here breaches one of these rules, tell us and we will correct it.

What never appears here

  • No named clinic, practitioner, group or brand. We do not name providers of aesthetic treatment, favourably or unfavourably. We cannot verify a provider, so we do not describe one.
  • No invented facts. No price, statistic, complication rate, success rate, study, survey, inspection finding or case study appears here unless it is attributed to a source you can open and read.
  • No rankings, no best of lists, no awards. A ranked list of businesses we have not assessed would be a fiction with a number next to it. Where a ranking would be the obvious format, we publish criteria instead.
  • No scare content. We do not use horror stories, distressing imagery or implied danger to drive behaviour. The material here is procedural because the subject is procedural.
  • No contempt for readers. Nobody is foolish for wanting cosmetic treatment.

Sourcing

Every article cites institution level sources: the professional regulators and their registers, the four nations' healthcare inspectorates, Companies House, the Financial Conduct Authority, the MHRA, the Advertising Standards Authority and the CAP Code, NICE, the NHS, and legislation on legislation.gov.uk. We cite sources we are confident exist and that you can open.

Where the law confers a power that has not been brought into force, we say so and we tell you how to check the commencement position yourself. We do not describe a power as a scheme.

Where a table or a framework is our own organisation of a subject rather than a regulator's classification, the footnote says so.

Every external link on this site is marked nofollow. We do not sell links, we do not accept paid links, and we do not link to any provider of aesthetic treatment. Articles carry a note stating that they contain no commercial links, because they do not.

Money and independence

The two revenue lines are described in full at about, at what we refuse to sell and at criteria and rate card. Neither is capable of influencing verification guidance, and neither is sold to providers of aesthetic treatment.

If a company appearing in the professional register were ever the subject of an article, the entry would be removed and the relationship disclosed. We would rather lose the entry than the page.

On accuracy and drafting

Articles are checked against the primary source before publication, and every procedure names the register or statute it depends on so that a reader can verify it independently. Where we cannot write something truthfully, we change the piece rather than the fact. Several articles on this site exist in their current form precisely because the version we first intended could not be written without asserting something we could not check.

Corrections and complaints about us

Write to us through contact. Corrections are made promptly and marked. If you believe a page here is misleading, tell us which sentence and why. If you are a provider and believe something here is unfair, note that we name no provider, so any concern is about the procedure rather than about you, and we will still read it.

The verification note

One email a month. What changed in the registers and the law, what a new rule actually requires, and one procedure written out in full. No clinic is ever recommended and none can pay to appear.

We store your address and nothing else. Sponsorship of this newsletter is labelled and sold at a published rate, and it cannot influence a single word of verification guidance. Unsubscribe at any time.