Self-assessment instrument: this scorecard is for a clinic assessing its own public practitioner and team pages. It is never applied to named suppliers. Assess each public-facing profile separately, retain the evidence used, and record the assessment date beside the result.
What this scorecard assesses
A practitioner profile is a patient-information asset as well as a reputation signal. A page can look complete while leaving basic questions unanswered: who is named, what credentials are actually stated, whether a registration claim can be checked, what work the person says they undertake, and whether the page still reflects the current team. This instrument assesses those visible facts. It does not decide whether a practitioner is clinically suitable, whether a qualification is sufficient for a procedure, or whether a particular treatment should be offered.
Score six criteria: named practitioner, stated qualifications, professional registration shown, declared scope of practice, corroborating entity signals, and page currency. Each receives a band from 0 to 3. The maximum page score is 18. A collective team page may be assessed, but it must not be used to conceal the absence of individual information where an individual is presented as a practitioner.
| Band | Score | Evidence threshold |
|---|---|---|
| Absent | 0 | The relevant information is missing, generic, contradictory or cannot be attributed to the person shown. |
| Limited | 1 | Some information appears, but a visitor cannot reasonably identify, interpret or check it from the page and its immediate context. |
| Substantiated | 2 | Specific information is shown in a form that can be attributed to the named individual or clearly designated team role. |
| Current and corroborated | 3 | The information is specific, internally consistent, supported by an appropriate public corroborating signal and visibly maintained. |
Use the total as a prompt for remediation, not as a public claim. A high total does not replace the separate Clinical Claim Substantiation Checklist, Regulatory Registration and Scope Readiness Assessment, or Before and After Imagery Governance Scorecard.
Criterion 1: named practitioner
Assess whether the person described on the page can be distinguished from colleagues and from the clinic itself. The minimum unit is a recognisable name connected to a stated professional or operational role. Initials alone, a first name alone, stock-style descriptions such as "our expert injector", or a shared team statement do not give a visitor a reliable means of knowing who is responsible for the profile.
Names should match across the profile, booking context where the practitioner is selectable, relevant consent or consultation information where applicable, and any registration reference shown. This criterion does not require publication of personal contact details, a home address, or material that would create a safeguarding concern. It considers whether the public identity on the page is clear and consistent.
| Score | Named-practitioner evidence |
|---|---|
| 0 | No individual is named, or the page presents a role without identifying who holds it. |
| 1 | A name or image appears, but the role is unclear, the identity is ambiguous, or information conflicts with another clinic page. |
| 2 | A full name and a clear role are shown, with no apparent inconsistency in the clinic's immediate public information. |
| 3 | A full name and clear role are shown, and the same identity is corroborated by appropriate connected clinic information or an applicable professional register entry. |
Record the exact page title, the name displayed, and any mismatch found. Do not infer a person's professional status from photography, uniform, title styling or the treatments listed nearby.
Criterion 2: stated qualifications
This criterion asks whether qualifications are stated in a way a visitor can read without guessing. It does not grade one qualification against another and does not determine whether it permits a particular activity. The assessment concerns attribution and clarity: is the credential connected to the named individual, named accurately enough to understand, and presented without unexplained abbreviations that could mislead?
A degree, diploma, professional membership, training course and honorary title are different kinds of statement. A profile need not list every course completed. Where a qualification is included, however, it should not be compressed into a string of letters with no accompanying explanation. If the clinic makes a claim about advanced training, the stated subject and provider or awarding body may be needed to make the claim interpretable. Claims of specialist status require particular care because a visitor may read them as a regulated designation.
| Score | Qualification evidence |
|---|---|
| 0 | No qualifications are stated despite qualification-based claims, or a claim is too vague to attribute or interpret. |
| 1 | Credentials are listed, but key abbreviations, relevance or attribution are unexplained. |
| 2 | Material qualifications are named in plain language and connected to the named practitioner. |
| 3 | Material qualifications are named, attributable and consistent with other stated professional information, with ambiguous terms explained. |
Keep this score separate from advertising compliance. Whether the wording of a qualification claim is appropriately substantiated is assessed through the Clinical Claim Substantiation Checklist.
Criterion 3: professional registration shown
Professional registration is not universal across everyone working in an aesthetic clinic, and a profile should not imply that it is. Where a practitioner says they are registered with a statutory regulator, assess whether the public information allows that statement to be understood and checked. In the United Kingdom, registers maintained by bodies such as the General Medical Council, Nursing and Midwifery Council, General Dental Council, Health and Care Professions Council and General Pharmaceutical Council have different remits. The relevant body depends on the profession claimed.
A regulator's name alone is weaker evidence than a statement that identifies the practitioner and the registration context. A registration number can assist checking, but publishing one is not the only possible route to a clear profile. The score should fall where a page uses a protected title or suggests registration while the identity, register or claimed profession is unclear. Do not treat membership of a private association as equivalent to statutory registration.
| Score | Registration evidence |
|---|---|
| 0 | Registration is claimed or implied but no regulator or checkable professional context is shown. |
| 1 | A regulator or professional title is mentioned, but the connection to the named person is unclear. |
| 2 | The named person, stated profession and relevant regulator are clearly connected on the profile. |
| 3 | The profile provides clear registration context and an appropriate corroborating means of checking the stated status, with no apparent conflict elsewhere on the site. |
This is not a registration check. The Regulatory Registration and Scope Readiness Assessment remains the place to record the clinic-level evidence, responsibilities and escalation points.
Criterion 4: declared scope of practice
A visitor should be able to distinguish a practitioner's stated role from a general clinic treatment menu. Assess whether the profile declares what the individual does, or what their team function covers, in measured and comprehensible terms. Scope may include consultation, prescribing responsibilities where relevant, treatment delivery, aftercare, skin therapy, nursing support, administration or clinical governance. It should not overstate expertise through broad wording that cannot be read alongside the person's stated role.
This is not a competence score and it should not be used to infer permission for any procedure. A page that lists every treatment sold by the clinic under every person's biography may score poorly if it provides no individual attribution. Equally, a concise profile can score well where its boundaries are clear. Check consistency with practitioner selection in the booking journey and with consultation material, without repeating the Booking Journey Friction Audit or Consultation to Booking Conversion Scorecard.
| Score | Scope evidence |
|---|---|
| 0 | No individual scope is declared, or the page makes broad treatment claims with no role context. |
| 1 | A role is stated, but the activities, boundaries or relationship to the clinic treatment menu remain unclear. |
| 2 | The profile states the person's principal role and relevant activities in language a visitor can understand. |
| 3 | The declared role, activities and boundaries are clear, specific and consistent with connected consultation, booking or aftercare information. |
Where scope wording includes clinical claims, score the evidence separately under the existing treatment-page and claim-substantiation instruments.
Criterion 5: corroborating entity signals
Corroborating entity signals are independent or connected identifiers that support, rather than replace, the claims on a profile. They may include an applicable statutory register reference, a clearly named awarding body, a professional body membership described accurately, a clinic governance page that identifies the same role, or a consultation pathway that identifies responsibility. The relevant question is whether the signal makes the page more attributable, not whether it adds visual badges.
A logo without explanation, a generic claim of accreditation, or a list of organisations unconnected to the named person is not sufficient. Signals should be proportionate. Administrative team profiles may require employment and role corroboration rather than clinical registration. A practitioner without statutory registration should not be penalised merely for not having one if the page does not imply it. Instead, assess whether the profile gives an accurate route to understand its claimed role and credentials.
| Score | Corroboration evidence |
|---|---|
| 0 | No supporting signal exists for material credentials, role or status claims, or signals are misleadingly presented. |
| 1 | A supporting signal appears but is generic, unexplained or not clearly connected to the individual. |
| 2 | At least one appropriate, attributable signal supports a material statement on the profile. |
| 3 | Appropriate signals support the main material statements and are consistent across the immediate patient-information journey. |
Do not count patient reviews, testimonials or before-and-after images as corroboration for qualifications or registration. Those materials belong in the Review and Reputation Health Scorecard and Before and After Imagery Governance Scorecard.
Criterion 6: page currency and assessment record
Currency concerns whether a visitor can reasonably rely on the profile as a current description. A publication or review date is useful only if the clinic can support it with an actual review process. Do not add a date merely to improve a score. Check whether people shown remain in the team, whether roles and qualifications match current internal records, whether treatment responsibilities have changed, and whether photographs and pronouns correspond to the profile identity.
Score the page from the evidence available on assessment day. Keep an internal record containing the page name, assessment date, assessor, six criterion scores, links or screenshots held internally, discrepancies, owner of each correction and next review trigger. A change of role, departure, new registration claim, altered treatment scope or new booking pathway should trigger reassessment. The record should survive a staff handover without relying on memory.
| Total score | Decision rule |
|---|---|
| 0 to 6 | Information is insufficient for reliance. Resolve identity, role and material claim gaps before treating the page as a dependable patient-information profile. |
| 7 to 12 | Core information exists but has material gaps. Prioritise unclear credentials, registration context, scope and contradictions. |
| 13 to 15 | The profile is substantially complete. Correct isolated gaps and establish a documented review trigger. |
| 16 to 18 | The profile is complete on this instrument's visible-evidence criteria. Maintain it and reassess when relevant information changes. |
Limits of this assessment
This scorecard assesses public profile completeness only. It does not verify that qualifications are genuine, confirm live registration status, determine legal compliance, assess clinical outcomes, inspect internal personnel files, evaluate insurance, test accessibility, or judge the quality of a consultation. It also does not apply a single standard to all roles. A receptionist, therapist, nurse, dentist, doctor and clinic manager may require different public information.
Do not use the total to compare clinics, practitioners, agencies or regulators. It is not a league table and cannot establish that one provider is safer or more capable than another. A page can score highly while important matters outside public-page evidence require review. Conversely, a lower score can reflect a missing explanation rather than an underlying professional failing.
For connected checks, use the existing Accessibility and Readability Audit for whether the profile can be read and understood; the Patient Communication Clarity Rubric for patient-facing wording; the Prescription-only Medicine Promotion Checklist for relevant promotional claims; and the Data Protection Readiness Assessment for clinic marketing where staff information is used in promotion. Record each instrument separately rather than merging results into a single claim.