Why a Structured Facial Assessment Matters: New Research

A 2026 study from a group of 17 clinics looked at what happened after they introduced a formal, structured facial assessment and written treatment plan for injectable patients. In the authors' main analysis, patients were more likely to continue their care after the change, which the researchers took as a sign of greater trust and satisfaction. The findings are encouraging, but the study design means they point to an association rather than proof.

Why this was studied

Most people would agree that a careful consultation is better than a rushed one. But structured consultation methods, where the whole face is assessed in a consistent way and a written plan is agreed, have not been well studied in large groups. The authors wanted to see whether introducing such a framework across their clinics was linked to how many patients chose to continue treatment.

They used continuing care as a stand-in for satisfaction. The idea is that people who feel well informed and well cared for are more likely to return. That is a reasonable assumption, but as we discuss below, it has limits. It also does not capture people who were well served by a consultation that ended with a decision not to treat.

What the researchers did

The study's summary reports a review of de-identified records from 17 clinics that share one patient database. It included adults who had their first cosmetic injectable between 2019 and early 2025, had at least two treatments and had consented to their data being used. The clinics introduced the structured assessment and planning process in March 2022, so the team compared patterns before and after that change. They used statistical models that accounted for age, sex and how often assessments were done.

The analysis included almost 15,000 patients, nearly all women, with an average age of about 42 at their first visit.

What they found

In the authors' adjusted model, the period after the structured plan was introduced was associated with a substantially higher likelihood of patients being retained at six months. The pattern held across neuromodulator, filler and biostimulator treatments.

One detail deserves mention. The simple six-month retention percentages in the summary were actually lower after the plan than before. The authors' conclusion rests on their more complex time-based model rather than those raw figures. We could only read the summary, so we cannot explain this difference, but it is a reason to treat the headline finding with some caution until it is examined further.

How strong is this evidence?

This is a retrospective, real-world analysis. Its strengths are its large size and its use of routine clinic records rather than a small, selected group. Its limits are important:

• Before-and-after comparisons are open to other explanations. Many things changed between 2019 and 2025, including the pandemic, staff, prices and public interest in aesthetics.
• Returning is not the same as being satisfied. People may continue or stop for reasons unrelated to the consultation.
• The study does not measure results, safety or wellbeing. It cannot tell us whether structured planning led to better-looking or safer outcomes.
• The clinics belong to one group, so the findings may not apply in other settings.

So this study supports, but does not prove, the value of structured assessment.

The ideal way to test the question would be a trial in which some clinics or clinicians use structured planning and others do not, with outcomes such as satisfaction scores, complication rates and how well results matched patients' goals measured directly. Such studies are harder and costlier to run, but they would give a clearer answer. Until then, this paper is best seen as one useful piece of a growing body of work on how consultations are done.

What it means for you

Whatever the statistics, the principles behind structured assessment are sound and patient-centred. A thorough consultation usually includes:

• a conversation about what bothers you, what you hope for and what you would rather avoid;
• a medical history, including medications, allergies, pregnancy and past treatments;
• a look at the whole face, at rest and in motion, rather than just one line or area;
• an explanation of what is causing the change, such as muscle movement, volume loss or skin quality;
• a plan that sets out options, including doing nothing, with risks, side effects and realistic expectations;
• a record of the plan so that you and your clinician can refer back to it.

A written plan should never be a sales list. It is a shared record that helps you make informed choices at your own pace. You are free to take one step, pause or decline any part. Our article on your first injectables consultation and what happens at a skin consultation describe what to expect.

Questions to ask at your consultation

• What do you see as the main causes of the changes I have noticed?
• What are my options, including non-injectable ones and no treatment?
• Can I have a summary of the plan we discussed?
• How will we review whether a treatment met my goals?

At HealthPark, consultations aim to give you that full picture before any treatment is considered.

Frequently asked questions

Why does my clinician look at my whole face when I only asked about one area?

Features influence each other. A concern in one area may be caused or affected by changes elsewhere, and understanding that helps avoid treatments that do not address the real cause.

Do I have to follow the whole plan?

No. A plan lays out options and possible timing. You decide what, if anything, to do and when.

Will a structured plan cost more?

Not necessarily. Fees for any treatment are disclosed in full at consultation before you decide, and aesthetic treatments are not covered by MSI.

If you would like a thorough, unhurried assessment before deciding on any treatment, a consultation is the place to begin.

Source

Fox A, Guest L, Telfer T. Enhanced patient retention with formal, structured facial assessment and treatment planning: a multi-clinic real-world analysis. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 2026. Read the study