The responses to the call for evidence in the review of cosmetic surgery were published on 31 December. It allowed experts in the cosmetic interventions industry and patient groups to contribute to Sir Bruce Keogh's review of the regulation of cosmetic interventions.

According to a statement from the Department of Health, while there were a wide range of views on the future regulation of cosmetic interventions, some consistent key messages emerged from respondents. Recurrent themes were:

• The current regulatory framework was inconsistent and did not reflect the many changes and innovations in such a fast-growing and dynamic sector
• Training requirements were felt by many to be disproportionately weak compared to the potential risks of a procedure and more specialised training was welcomed
• Dermal fillers and intense pulsed light and laser procedures were highlighted by many as an area where there was insufficient legislation to protect the public

Many respondents were concerned about the lack of data being collected on implants, procedures, adverse incidents and outcomes and the view was that the review was timely and an important part of restoring public trust in the cosmetic interventions sector following the issues with PIP breast implants.

Suggestions that respondents wanted to see implemented included:

• Banning free consultations for cosmetic surgery so that people don't feel obliged to go through with surgical procedures
• Ensuring consultations are with a medical professional, not a sales adviser
• Imposing tighter restrictions on advertising, including banning 'two-for-one', time-limited deals and cosmetic surgery as competition prizes
• Requiring a two-stage written consent for surgery so people have time to reflect before making a decision
• Providing better information for patients, including photos of expected bruising and scarring, and more detail on the risks associated with surgery.

The publication was welcomed by the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (BAAPS), which said it had argued for many of the recommendations over a period of years.

Its president Rajiv Grover said: "Whilst we are delighted that the majority of the public agrees with what we have been saying for years – namely, that this largely unregulated sector leaves vulnerable people open to being taken advantage of through aggressive sales techniques – so far there is still a major, gaping loophole that has clearly not been addressed fully.

"In particular, the call for a 'medical professional' rather than 'a salesperson' to hold the initial consultation with prospective patients is a dangerously broad and inadequate definition. Unequivocally, the only person holding a consultation with a patient should be the surgeon who will be performing the procedure. Otherwise, the 'professional' could still be, for example, a nurse working on commission for practitioners based either here or even abroad.

"Recognised medico-legally, informed consent is essential for patient safety and only the surgeon carrying out the actual operation should be involved in the process. Achieving anything less at the end of this exercise would make a mockery of the review, if not an outright sham."