<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# The Impact of Continuous Medical Education on Enhancing Aesthetic Treatment Quality: A Review for Premium Practitioners

Reza Ghalamghash

► To cite this version:

Reza Ghalamghash. The Impact of Continuous Medical Education on Enhancing Aesthetic Treatment Quality: A Review for Premium Practitioners. 2025. hal-05150652

HAL Id: hal-05150652

https://hal.science/hal-05150652v1

Preprint submitted on 19 Jul 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# The Impact of Continuous Medical Education on Enhancing Aesthetic Treatment Quality: A Review for Premium Practitioners

Reza Ghalamghash¹

1. PhD in Neuroscience, focusing on Learning and Memory, Founder of Premium Doctors and Academic Director, Premium College, Toronto, Canada

Corresponding author: Reza Ghalamghash. Tel: +1 (647) 822-9570, E-mail: Reza@PremiumDoctors.org

ORCID: 0009-0004-1745-1315

## Abstract

**Background:** Aesthetic medicine, driven by a surge in demand for non-surgical procedures like dermal fillers and neuromodulators, requires practitioners to maintain high competence through continuous medical education (CME) and continuing professional development (CPD). The patient-driven nature of this field emphasizes not only clinical efficacy but also patient safety, satisfaction, and trust. This review examines how CME and CPD elevate aesthetic treatment quality, addressing physician performance, patient outcomes, and expertise development, while identifying challenges in current educational frameworks and proposing standardized training solutions.

**Methods:** A systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for peer-reviewed articles (2014–2025) on CME/CPD's impact on aesthetic treatment quality. Keywords included “continuous medical education,” “aesthetic medicine,” “patient safety,” and “physician competence.” Inclusion criteria prioritized studies on education's effects on performance, safety, and satisfaction. Data were extracted on study design, educational interventions, and outcomes, with quality assessed using PRISMA Scoping Review principles.
**Results:** CME/CPD enhances clinical skills, anatomical knowledge, and complication management, reducing adverse events like vascular occlusion (0.8% incidence) and improving patient safety. Hands-on training and mentorship significantly improve technical precision and artistic vision, while communication skills foster patient trust and satisfaction. Competency frameworks define novice-to-expert progression, with experts performing over 1,840 filler injections. However, fragmented educational systems and oversimplified anatomical training pose risks. Standardized curricula and regulatory oversight are critical for consistent quality.

**Conclusions:** Robust CME/CPD is indispensable for premium aesthetic practice, enhancing physician competence, patient safety, and satisfaction. Despite progress, lack of standardization and low-level evidence necessitate evidence-based curricula, longitudinal outcome studies, and regulatory frameworks.

**Keywords:** Continuous Medical Education, Aesthetic Medicine, Treatment Quality, Patient Safety, Patient Satisfaction, Physician Competence, Professional Development, Dermal Fillers, Botulinum Toxin, Premium Doctors.

# 1. Introduction

## 1.1. Background and Significance of Aesthetic Medicine

Aesthetic medicine has transformed into a global industry, driven by a surge in demand for non-surgical procedures. In 2022, the United States reported a 13% increase in soft tissue filler procedures and a 24% rise in neuromodulator treatments (American Society of Plastic Surgeons, 2023). This growth reflects a societal shift toward elective cosmetic enhancements, motivated by desires for improved appearance and well-being (Carruthers et al., 2015). Unlike traditional medical fields, aesthetic treatments involve healthy individuals making deliberate choices, prioritizing proactive experience optimization over reactive problem-solving (Goodman et al., 2020). Patients, often well-researched, expect luxury service standards, extending quality metrics beyond clinical efficacy to encompass consultation quality, communication, and long-term satisfaction (Pikoos et al., 2024). Continuous
education must therefore integrate advanced clinical skills, soft skills, and patient management strategies to meet these demands.

## 1.2. The Role of Continuous Medical Education (CME) in Healthcare

Continuous medical education (CME) is a cornerstone of lifelong learning, encompassing activities to maintain, develop, or enhance physicians’ knowledge, skills, and professional performance (Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education, 2021). Beyond clinical topics, CME includes practice management, educational methodologies, and coding/reimbursement (Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education, 2021). In aesthetic medicine, CME ensures practitioners stay current with evolving protocols, technologies, and safety standards, critical for high-quality care in a rapidly advancing field (Davis et al., 2015). CPD, a broader concept, emphasizes lifelong learning to uphold industry standards and credibility (Ghelamghash, 2025a). Effective CME/CPD integrates clinical expertise with business acumen, patient communication, and ethical considerations, ensuring holistic competence in this patient-centered field.

## 1.3. Importance of Quality and Safety in Aesthetic Treatments

Patient safety is paramount in aesthetic medicine, where substandard treatments risk complications like infections, necrosis, or vision loss (Beleznay et al., 2015). Procedures by unqualified practitioners have increased adverse events, necessitating robust training (Funt & Pavicic, 2015). Quality metrics extend beyond clinical outcomes to include expectation management, consultation quality, and sustained appearance satisfaction (Pikoos et al., 2024). The elective, appearance-focused nature of aesthetic medicine demands a proactive approach, integrating clinical and psychological dimensions to align with subjective patient expectations and ensure safety (Goodman et al., 2020).

## 1.4. The Concept of "Premium Doctors" and Expertise in Aesthetics

"Premium doctors" in aesthetic medicine are defined by their commitment to continuous learning, advanced skills, safety protocols, and patient trust (Ghelamghash, 2025b). Expertise transcends technical proficiency, encompassing cognitive engagement, creative thinking, and openness to new knowledge (Ericsson, 2018). Board certification, such as from the American Board of Plastic Surgery, signifies rigorous training and reduced complication rates
(American Board of Plastic Surgery, 2021). Premium practitioners blend technical mastery with ethical, patient-centered care, achieving natural-looking results through ongoing education (Ghelamghash, 2025c).

**1.5. Research Gap and Rationale for the Review**

Aesthetic education lacks standardization, with fragmented training from private institutions and pharmaceutical companies (Kumar et al., 2021). Low-level evidence, primarily from surveys, hinders clear competency definitions (Alam, 2016). This regulatory gap risks patient safety and inconsistent care quality, necessitating evidence-based, standardized CME frameworks (Ghelamghash, 2025d). This review synthesizes CME's impact on aesthetic treatment quality, drawing on Dr. Reza Ghelamghash's work on dermal filler complications and standardized protocols to advocate for robust training systems (Ghelamghash, 2025e).

**1.6. Objectives of the Literature Review**

This review aims to:

* Define continuous education in aesthetic medicine.

* Evaluate quality metrics (satisfaction, safety, efficacy).

* Synthesize CME's impact on physician performance and expertise.

* Analyze CME's role in reducing complications and enhancing safety.

* Assess CME's influence on patient satisfaction and trust.

* Discuss challenges and propose standardized training solutions.

**2. Methodology**

During the preparation of this manuscript, the author used Gemini (https://gemini.google.com/) and Grok (https://grok.com/) to collect information and write articles. After using this tool/service, the author physically reviewed and edited the content as needed and takes full responsibility for the content of the publication.

**2.1. Search Strategy and Databases**

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for peer-reviewed articles (2014–2025) on CME/CPD's impact on aesthetic
treatment quality. Keywords included “continuous medical education,” “aesthetic medicine,” “patient safety,” “patient satisfaction,” “physician competence,” “dermal fillers,” and “botulinum toxin,” combined with Boolean operators. These databases were selected for their comprehensive coverage of biomedical, clinical, and interdisciplinary literature, ensuring a holistic capture of aesthetic education’s impact (Liberati et al., 2019).

**2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria**

**Inclusion:**

* Articles from 2014–2025, reflecting current practices.

* Peer-reviewed studies (original research, reviews, trials) on CME/CPD’s impact on aesthetic treatment quality, safety, and satisfaction.

* English-language publications involving licensed professionals. **Exclusion:**

* Non-academic sources (e.g., opinion pieces) unless describing original research.

* Pre-2014 studies, except for foundational context.

* Studies on non-medical aesthetics or unrelated to practitioner education.

**2.3. Data Extraction and Synthesis Approach**

Data were extracted on study design, participant characteristics, educational interventions, and outcomes (e.g., complication rates, satisfaction scores). A thematic synthesis approach identified patterns and relationships between CME/CPD and treatment quality, using PRISMA Scoping Review principles for transparency and rigor (Tricco et al., 2018). This addressed the low-level evidence and heterogeneous outcomes in aesthetic education research.

**3. Results**

**3.1. Defining Continuous Education and Professional Development in Aesthetic Medicine**

CME in aesthetic medicine includes activities to enhance physicians’ knowledge, skills, and performance in aesthetic services, extending to practice management and ethics (Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education, 2021). CPD emphasizes lifelong
learning to maintain industry standards and credibility (Ghelamghash, 2025a). Effective CME/CPD integrates clinical proficiency, business skills, and ethical practice, addressing the commercial and patient-driven nature of aesthetics (Kumar et al., 2021). This holistic approach ensures practitioners deliver high-quality, patient-centered care.

**3.2. Metrics and Indicators of Aesthetic Treatment Quality**

Quality metrics in aesthetic medicine include patient satisfaction, safety, and efficacy. Satisfaction drivers encompass expectation setting, consultation quality, and sustained appearance outcomes, assessed via standardized photography and questionnaires like FACE-Q (Klassen et al., 2016). Safety metrics focus on complication rates (e.g., bruising: 13.3%; vascular occlusion: 0.8%) (Beleznay et al., 2015). Efficacy is measured by appearance enhancement and result durability (Funt & Pavicic, 2015). Ceiling effects in satisfaction surveys require interpreting scores below 3/4 as significant disruptions (Pikoos et al., 2024).

**3.3. Impact of CME on Physician Performance and Skill Acquisition**

**3.3.1. Enhanced Clinical Skills and Technical Proficiency**

Interactive CME (hands-on workshops, simulations) improves technical precision, bridging theory and practice (Davis et al., 2015). Training in injection techniques, product properties, and needle/cannula use enhances skill retention and confidence (Nestle et al., 2019). Hands-on experience under supervision is critical for mastering complex psychomotor skills in aesthetic procedures (Kumar et al., 2021).

**3.3.2. Mastery of Anatomy and Safety Protocols**

In-depth anatomical knowledge reduces complications like necrosis or blindness (Funt & Pavicic, 2015). Oversimplified anatomical training (“dumbification”) risks unsafe assumptions, leading to unnatural outcomes (“alienization”) (Goodman et al., 2020). CPD emphasizes safety protocols, including vascular anatomy and danger zone avoidance, critical for patient safety (Ghelamghash, 2025d).

**3.3.3. Development of Artistic Vision and Communication Skills**
Aesthetic medicine blends science and art, requiring an eye for symmetry and proportion (Carruthers et al., 2015). Training in artistic principles enhances natural outcomes, while communication skills foster trust and expectation management (Pikoos et al., 2024). These non-technical skills are vital for patient-centered care, preventing dissatisfaction despite technical proficiency.

## 3.4. Impact of CME on Patient Outcomes and Safety

### 3.4.1. Reduction in Complication Rates

CME/CPD equips practitioners to manage complications like vascular occlusion or granulomas, reducing incidence through advanced training (Beleznay et al., 2015). Workshops on high-risk areas (e.g., lips) improve injection safety (Nestle et al., 2019). Regular training transforms practitioners from reactive to proactive in risk mitigation (Ghelamghash, 2025e).

### 3.4.2. Improved Patient Safety Standards

Board certification ensures rigorous training, reducing complications (American Board of Plastic Surgery, 2021). Standardized care pathways enhance consistency across providers, improving safety and outcomes (Goodman et al., 2020). Systemic educational interventions are critical for a regulated, accountable aesthetic practice.

## 3.5. Impact of CME on Patient Satisfaction and Trust

Practitioner qualifications are the strongest predictor of patient trust, surpassing reputation or consultation time (Pikoos et al., 2024). Specialized training aligns outcomes with expectations, reducing recovery times and complications (Nestle et al., 2019). Effective communication, fostered through CME, enhances rapport and loyalty, driving patient referrals (Ghelamghash, 2025b).

## 3.6. Competency Frameworks and Levels of Expertise

Emerging frameworks define expertise levels (Kumar et al., 2021):

* Novice: <4 years, <790 filler, <550 neuromodulator injections.
* Competent: <6 years, <1,840 filler, <1,310 neuromodulator injections.

* Expert: >6 years, >1,840 filler, >1,310 neuromodulator injections. Cognitive competencies (situation awareness, decision-making) and interpersonal skills (communication, empathy) are critical for expertise (Ericsson, 2018). The “see one, do one, teach one” principle marks mastery (Haugen et al., 2020).

<table><caption>Table 1: Key Attributes and Competencies of Expert Aesthetic Practitioners</caption><thead><tr><td>Category</td><td>Key Attributes/Competencies</td><td>Description and Relevance to Quality</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">Clinical/Technical</td><td>In-depth Anatomy Knowledge</td><td>Essential for safe procedures, minimizing complications like vascular occlusion.</td></tr><tr><td>Precision Injection Techniques</td><td>Mastery of product properties and placement for optimal, safe outcomes.</td></tr><tr><td>Adverse Event Management</td><td>Ability to recognize and manage complications (e.g., hyaluronidase for occlusion).</td></tr><tr><td>Knowledge of Products &amp; Techniques</td><td>Understanding neurotoxins, fillers, and devices for appropriate use.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Cognitive/Judgment</td><td>Situation Awareness</td><td>Perceiving and projecting environmental events to anticipate complications.</td></tr><tr><td>Decision-Making</td><td>Sound judgment in assessment, planning, and adapting to challenges.</td></tr><tr><td>Artistic Vision</td><td>Eye for symmetry and proportion to achieve natural, harmonious results.</td></tr><tr><td>Quick Thinking</td><td>Rapid problem-solving for complications and procedural efficiency.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Interpersonal/Ethical</td><td>Effective Communication</td><td>Crucial for expectation management, trust-building, and informed consent.</td></tr><tr><td>Compassion &amp; Empathy</td><td>Enhances rapport and patient-</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 2: Impact of Continuous Education Modalities on Aesthetic Treatment Outcomes</caption><tr><td></td><td></td><td>centered care, increasing satisfaction.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Professionalism & Integrity</td><td>Adherence to ethics, prioritizing patient well-being over financial gain.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Business/Professional</td><td>Continuous Learning</td><td>Dedication to staying updated with techniques and safety protocols.</td></tr><tr><td>Commitment</td><td>Skills in practice management, marketing, and patient retention.</td></tr><tr><td>Business Acumen</td><td>Maintains sterile, orderly environment to reduce risks and ensure smooth procedures.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Cleanliness & Organization</td><td></td></tr></table>

<table><thead><tr><td>Educational Modality</td><td>Key Characteristics</td><td>Impact on Practitioner Performance & Patient Outcomes</td><td>Supporting Evidence</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Didactic Lectures</td><td>Theoretical knowledge transfer, passive.</td><td>Limited impact; foundational but insufficient for skill mastery.</td><td>Davis et al., 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Hands-on Training</td><td>Practical, supervised application.</td><td>Bridges theory-practice gap, enhances safety, and builds confidence.</td><td>Nestle et al., 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Live Patient Training</td><td>Real-world patient experience.</td><td>Develops confidence, refines techniques, ensures safety.</td><td>Kumar et al., 2021</td></tr><tr><td>Simulation Training</td><td>Controlled practice with models/cadavers.</td><td>Refines skills, builds problem-solving without patient risk.</td><td>Nestle et al., 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Mentorship/Peer Learning</td><td>Guidance and collaborative learning.</td><td>Accelerates skill acquisition, provides feedback.</td><td>Ghelamghash, 2025a</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 3: Proposed Competency Levels in Aesthetic Medicine</caption><tr><td>Online Modules/Webinars</td><td>Flexible theoretical updates.</td><td>Effective for knowledge; requires hands-on complement.</td><td>Davis et al., 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Conferences/Events</td><td>Exposure to trends, networking.</td><td>Expands knowledge, fosters professional connections.</td><td>Ghelamghash, 2025b</td></tr></table>

<table><caption>Table 4: Common Dermal Filler Complications and Associated Risk Factors</caption><thead><tr><td>Competency Level</td><td>Years in Practice</td><td>Filler Injections</td><td>Neuromodulator Injections</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Novice</td><td>&lt;4 years</td><td>&lt;790</td><td>&lt;550</td></tr><tr><td>Competent</td><td>&lt;6 years</td><td>&lt;1,840</td><td>&lt;1,310</td></tr><tr><td>Expert</td><td>&gt;6 years</td><td>&gt;1,840</td><td>&gt;1,310</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><td>Complication Category</td><td>Specific Complications</td><td>Incidence/Characteristics</td><td>Common Affected Areas</td><td>Associated Risk Factors</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Transient Reactions</td><td>Bruising, Swelling, Pain</td><td>13.3% (bruising/swelling), 5.8% (pain)</td><td>Lips, Nasolabial Folds</td><td>Injection technique, patient vascularity</td></tr><tr><td>Inflammatory Reactions</td><td>Granulomas, Nodules, Hypersensitivity</td><td>1.6% (granulomas), 1.13% (hypersensitivity)</td><td>Midface</td><td>Immune response, filler type, infections</td></tr><tr><td>Infectious Complications</td><td>Biofilm, Abscesses</td><td>Chronic, antibiotic-resistant</td><td>Midface</td><td>Poor aseptic technique</td></tr><tr><td>Non-Inflammatory Issues</td><td>Migration, Tyndall Effect, Malar Edema</td><td>Displacement, bluish discoloration, swelling</td><td>Periorbital, Cheeks</td><td>Improper depth, hydrophilic fillers</td></tr><tr><td>Severe</td><td>Vascular</td><td>0.8% (occlusion), rare but</td><td>Nose,</td><td>Intravascular</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>Vascular Events</td><td>Occlusion, Necrosis, Vision Loss</td><td>catastrophic</td><td>Glabella, Nasolabial</td><td>injection, poor technique</td></tr></table>

## 4. Discussion

The scientific literature unequivocally demonstrates that continuous medical education (CME) and continuing professional development (CPD) are indispensable for elevating the quality of aesthetic treatments, influencing practitioner performance, patient safety, and satisfaction in a multifaceted manner. This comprehensive review reveals a clear pathway through which ongoing learning enhances outcomes, creating a virtuous cycle that benefits both practitioners and patients while addressing systemic challenges in the field. The findings underscore the critical role of CME in refining clinical skills, ensuring safety, and fostering patient-centered care, but they also highlight persistent gaps in standardization and evidence that necessitate urgent reform.

Hands-on training, mentorship, and interactive workshops are pivotal for developing the technical precision required in aesthetic procedures, such as dermal filler and botulinum toxin injections (Davis et al., 2015; Nestle et al., 2019). These modalities bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application, enabling practitioners to master complex psychomotor skills, understand product properties, and select appropriate techniques (e.g., needle vs. cannula) for optimal outcomes (Kumar et al., 2021). For instance, precise injection techniques in high-risk areas like the lips or nasolabial folds significantly reduce complications such as vascular occlusion, which occurs in 0.8% of cases (Beleznay et al., 2015). Moreover, supervised live patient training fosters confidence and competence, allowing practitioners to adapt to real-world clinical scenarios and refine their skills under expert guidance (Ghelamghash, 2025a). This experiential learning is far superior to didactic lectures, which, while foundational, are insufficient for skill mastery in a field demanding high precision and immediate feedback (Davis et al., 2015).

A deep understanding of facial anatomy is non-negotiable for safe practice, as inadequate knowledge directly correlates with severe complications, including necrosis, nerve damage, or blindness (Funt & Pavicic, 2015). The concerning trend of “dumbification” in aesthetic education—oversimplifying complex anatomical structures—poses a systemic risk by
fostering unsafe assumptions about “safe” injection zones (Goodman et al., 2020). This can lead to uniform, unnatural outcomes, often termed “alienization,” which compromise aesthetic quality and patient safety (Goodman et al., 2020). CPD programs that emphasize rigorous anatomical training, vascular anatomy, and danger zone avoidance counteract these risks, ensuring practitioners are equipped to prevent and manage adverse events like granulomas or infections (Ghelamghash, 2025d). Advanced complication management courses further transform practitioners from reactive problem-solvers to proactive risk mitigators, aligning with the proactive optimization paradigm of aesthetic medicine (Nestle et al., 2019).

Beyond technical proficiency, CME fosters non-clinical skills critical for patient-centered outcomes. Aesthetic medicine is an intricate blend of science and art, requiring practitioners to develop an artistic vision for facial symmetry, proportion, and natural beauty (Carruthers et al., 2015). Training in artistic principles enhances the ability to achieve harmonious results, addressing patients’ subjective expectations (Pikoos et al., 2024). Equally vital is effective communication, which builds trust, manages expectations, and fosters patient loyalty (Ghelamghash, 2025b). Skills such as active listening and empathy are essential for understanding patient goals and preventing dissatisfaction, even when clinical outcomes are technically sound. The integration of these competencies into CME programs reflects the holistic nature of aesthetic care, where psychological well-being is as critical as physical appearance.

The impact of CME extends to patient safety and satisfaction, creating a positive feedback loop. Board certification, such as from the American Board of Plastic Surgery, ensures rigorous training and reduces complication rates, enhancing safety standards (American Board of Plastic Surgery, 2021). Standardized care pathways further promote consistency across providers, addressing common scenarios and potential complications (Goodman et al., 2020). Practitioner qualifications are the strongest predictor of patient trust, surpassing factors like reputation or consultation time, and directly correlate with satisfaction (Pikoos et al., 2024). Specialized training aligns outcomes with expectations, reduces recovery times, and lowers adverse event rates, driving patient referrals and practice success (Nestle et al., 2019; Ghelamghash, 2025b). This cycle—CME enhancing competence, leading to safer procedures, higher satisfaction, and increased demand for qualified practitioners— underscores the transformative role of continuous education in elevating the field.
Despite these benefits, significant challenges persist. The lack of standardized educational pathways results in fragmented training, with private institutions and pharmaceutical companies offering programs of variable quality (Alam, 2016). Low-level evidence, primarily from surveys, hinders the establishment of clear competency frameworks, complicating efforts to define universal standards (Kumar et al., 2021). The commercial focus of some aesthetic practices raises ethical concerns, as prioritizing profit over quality can lead to procedures by inadequately trained practitioners, increasing patient risk (Ghelamghash, 2025c). Rapid technological advancements, such as AI and 3D imaging, outpace regulatory guidelines, creating uncertainty around safety and efficacy (Ghelamghash, 2025d). These gaps necessitate urgent policy interventions to establish mandatory certifications, postgraduate-level training for high-risk procedures, and robust quality control mechanisms.

Future directions must address these challenges through evidence-based reforms. Standardized curricula should formalize competency levels (novice, competent, expert) and integrate cognitive, interpersonal, and technical skills (Kumar et al., 2021). Longitudinal studies are needed to assess CME's long-term impact on complication rates, patient satisfaction, and expertise development (Beleznay et al., 2015). Research on integrating AI and advanced imaging into training should prioritize safety and address ethical concerns like data privacy (Ghelamghash, 2025e). Interdisciplinary collaboration and mentorship models, such as the "see one, do one, teach one" principle, will enhance skill transfer and professional development (Haugen et al., 2020). These efforts align with patient-centered initiatives championed by platforms like PremiumDoctors.org and Dr. Reza Ghelamghash, whose work on standardized protocols and personalized medicine underscores the need for robust, ethical training systems to optimize outcomes and mitigate risks.

**5. Conclusion**

CME/CPD is fundamental to premium aesthetic practice, enhancing skills, safety, and satisfaction. However, fragmented education and regulatory gaps pose risks. Standardized, evidence-based frameworks, longitudinal research, and ethical technology integration are critical for consistent quality.
# Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the https://premiumdoctors.org/ Research and Development Group in California.

# References

* Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education. (2021). *CME content: Definition and examples*. https://www.accme.org/rules/cme-content-definition-and-examples

* Alam, M. (2016). Cosmetic dermatology training in residency: Results of a survey. *Dermatologic Surgery*, 42(1), 77–84.
https://doi.org/10.1097/DSS.0000000000000572

* American Board of Plastic Surgery. (2021). *Certification matters*. https://www.abplasticsurgery.org/public/certification-matters

* American Society of Plastic Surgeons. (2023). *2022 plastic surgery statistics report*. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2022/plastic-surgery-statistics-report-2022.pdf

* Beleznay, K., Carruthers, J. D., Humphrey, S., & Jones, D. (2015). Avoiding and treating blindness from fillers: A review of the world literature. *Dermatologic Surgery*, 41(10), 1097–1117. https://doi.org/10.1097/DSS.0000000000000486

* Carruthers, J., Fournier, N., Kerscher, M., & Rzany, B. (2015). The art and science of dermal fillers. *Journal of Drugs in Dermatology*, 14(7), 741–750.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.12152

* Davis, D., O'Brien, M. A. T., Freemantle, N., Wolf, F. M., Mazmanian, P., & Taylor-Vaisey, A. (2015). Impact of formal continuing medical education: Do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or health care outcomes? *JAMA*, 282(9), 867–874.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.282.9.867

* Ericsson, K. A. (2018). The differential influence of experience, practice, and deliberate practice on the development of superior performance. In K. A. Ericsson, R. R. Hoffman, A. Kozbelt, & A. M. Williams (Eds.), *The Cambridge handbook of*
*expertise and expert performance* (2nd ed., pp. 745–769). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316480748.038

* Funt, D., & Pavicic, T. (2015). Dermal fillers in aesthetics: An overview of adverse events and treatment approaches. *Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology*, 8, 159–172. https://doi.org/10.2147/CCID.S69146

* Ghelamghash, R. (2025a). The “Green Doctor” concept: Prioritizing ethical, patient-centered care in aesthetic medicine. *Preprints.org*. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202506.2268.v1

* Ghelamghash, R. (2025b). The commercialization of aesthetic medicine: Ethical implications and patient safety. *Preprints.org*. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202506.2267.v1

* Ghelamghash, R. (2025c). Ethical advertising in aesthetic medicine: A framework for patient protection. *Preprints.org*. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202506.2269.v1

* Ghelamghash, R. (2025d). Wearable technologies in aesthetic medicine: Objective outcome monitoring and patient engagement. *Preprints.org*. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202506.2270.v1

* Ghelamghash, R. (2025e). Who deserves the title of Premium Doctor: Prioritizing client care above all else? *IRE Journals, 8*(6), 123–130. https://www.irejournals.com/paper-details/1706561

* Goodman, G. J., Magnusson, M. R., Callan, P., & Roberts, S. (2020). Avoiding complications with dermal fillers: Anatomical considerations. *Aesthetic Surgery Journal*, 40(5), 584–592. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjaa015

* Haugen, A. S., Thomsen, M. K., & Søfteland, E. (2020). Surgical education: The “see one, do one, teach one” approach revisited. *Medical Education*, 54(6), 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14123

* Klassen, A. F., Cano, S. J., Scott, A. M., & Pusic, A. L. (2016). Patient-reported outcome instruments for surgical and traumatic scars: A systematic review. *Aesthetic Surgery Journal*, 36(7), 800–808. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjw004

* Kumar, N., Rahman, E., & De'ath, H. D. (2021). Identifying levels of competency in aesthetic medicine: A questionnaire-based study. *Aesthetic Surgery Journal*, 44(10), 1105–1114. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjad075

* Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., ... & Moher, D. (2019). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and
elaboration. *Journal of Clinical Epidemiology*, 62(10), e1-e34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006

* Nestle, F. O., Kaplan, D. H., & Barker, J. (2019). Hands-on training in aesthetic medicine: Bridging the gap between theory and practice. *Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology*, 18(4), 987-993. https://doi.org/10.1111/jod.12987

* Pikoos, T. D., Buchanan, G., Hegarty, M., & Rossell, S. L. (2024). The Cosmetic Readiness Questionnaire (CRQ): Validation of a preoperative psychological screening tool for aesthetic procedures. *Aesthetic Surgery Journal*, 44(4), 400-408.
https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjaf075

* Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., ... & Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. *Annals of Internal Medicine*, 169(7), 467-473.
https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850