PFD report

Renee Simone Brooks · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 31 Jan 2020•Birmingham and Solihull

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
8

Described in responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised4

  1. Lack of UK guidance on the safe frequency of lipoedema-related liposuction procedures
  2. Lack of UK guidance on the amount of fluid to remove during lipoedema-related liposuction
  3. Lack of UK guidance on the amount of fluid to put into patients during lipoedema-related liposuction
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.5

  1. Action

    Consider producing new guidance on liposuction for chronic lipoedema.

    Stated by National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 30 December 2020.
  2. Action

    Submit the completed liposuction guidelines to the CQC for use when inspecting premises involved in liposuction.

    Stated by BAPRAS and British Association of Aesthetic Plastic SurgeonsStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 30 December 2020.
  3. Action

    Forward the guidelines to the coroner for inspection before publication.

    Stated by BAPRAS and British Association of Aesthetic Plastic SurgeonsStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 30 December 2020.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of UK guidance on the safe frequency of lipoedema-related liposuction procedures

Wider context from the report

“Large volume liposuction is the recognised treatment for patients with lipoedema performed by a small number of specialist surgeons. UK guidance is limited to cosmetic procedures. There are no UK guidelines for lipoedema related liposuction and practices amongst surgeons vary considerably. I heard evidence from ████████ - consultant plastic and reconstruction surgeon, ████████ – Spire’s Group Clinical Director, and ████████ - investigation lead for Spire Parkway Hospital. All expressed concern about the absence of UK guidance relating to indications for safe practice. In particular, in relation to: (a) the frequency of procedures on a single patient, (b) the amount of fluid to put into the patient during the procedure, (c) the amount of fluid to remove from the patient during the procedure, and (d) the post procedure patient recovery plan. Spire Group have since the death of Mrs Brooks created their own internal standard guidance. The majority of procedures are performed on privately paying patients, although the NHS will refer a small number of patients for the procedure funded by the NHS. My ongoing concern is that absence of UK guidance relating to indications for safe practice for lipoedema related liposuction is putting patients’ lives at risk. In my opinion there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of UK guidance on the amount of fluid to remove during lipoedema-related liposuction

Wider context from the report

“Large volume liposuction is the recognised treatment for patients with lipoedema performed by a small number of specialist surgeons. UK guidance is limited to cosmetic procedures. There are no UK guidelines for lipoedema related liposuction and practices amongst surgeons vary considerably. I heard evidence from ████████ - consultant plastic and reconstruction surgeon, ████████ – Spire’s Group Clinical Director, and ████████ - investigation lead for Spire Parkway Hospital. All expressed concern about the absence of UK guidance relating to indications for safe practice. In particular, in relation to: (a) the frequency of procedures on a single patient, (b) the amount of fluid to put into the patient during the procedure, (c) the amount of fluid to remove from the patient during the procedure, and (d) the post procedure patient recovery plan. Spire Group have since the death of Mrs Brooks created their own internal standard guidance. The majority of procedures are performed on privately paying patients, although the NHS will refer a small number of patients for the procedure funded by the NHS. My ongoing concern is that absence of UK guidance relating to indications for safe practice for lipoedema related liposuction is putting patients’ lives at risk. In my opinion there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of UK guidance on the amount of fluid to put into patients during lipoedema-related liposuction

Wider context from the report

“Large volume liposuction is the recognised treatment for patients with lipoedema performed by a small number of specialist surgeons. UK guidance is limited to cosmetic procedures. There are no UK guidelines for lipoedema related liposuction and practices amongst surgeons vary considerably. I heard evidence from ████████ - consultant plastic and reconstruction surgeon, ████████ – Spire’s Group Clinical Director, and ████████ - investigation lead for Spire Parkway Hospital. All expressed concern about the absence of UK guidance relating to indications for safe practice. In particular, in relation to: (a) the frequency of procedures on a single patient, (b) the amount of fluid to put into the patient during the procedure, (c) the amount of fluid to remove from the patient during the procedure, and (d) the post procedure patient recovery plan. Spire Group have since the death of Mrs Brooks created their own internal standard guidance. The majority of procedures are performed on privately paying patients, although the NHS will refer a small number of patients for the procedure funded by the NHS. My ongoing concern is that absence of UK guidance relating to indications for safe practice for lipoedema related liposuction is putting patients’ lives at risk. In my opinion there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of UK guidance on post-procedure patient recovery plans for lipoedema-related liposuction

Wider context from the report

“Large volume liposuction is the recognised treatment for patients with lipoedema performed by a small number of specialist surgeons. UK guidance is limited to cosmetic procedures. There are no UK guidelines for lipoedema related liposuction and practices amongst surgeons vary considerably. I heard evidence from ████████ - consultant plastic and reconstruction surgeon, ████████ – Spire’s Group Clinical Director, and ████████ - investigation lead for Spire Parkway Hospital. All expressed concern about the absence of UK guidance relating to indications for safe practice. In particular, in relation to: (a) the frequency of procedures on a single patient, (b) the amount of fluid to put into the patient during the procedure, (c) the amount of fluid to remove from the patient during the procedure, and (d) the post procedure patient recovery plan. Spire Group have since the death of Mrs Brooks created their own internal standard guidance. The majority of procedures are performed on privately paying patients, although the NHS will refer a small number of patients for the procedure funded by the NHS. My ongoing concern is that absence of UK guidance relating to indications for safe practice for lipoedema related liposuction is putting patients’ lives at risk. In my opinion there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Consider producing new guidance on liposuction for chronic lipoedema.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In view of the safety concerns raised by this case, the IP team will consider whether:”

Source location

2020-0260-Response-from-NICE_Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 30 December 2020

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Submit the completed liposuction guidelines to the CQC for use when inspecting premises involved in liposuction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The majority of liposuction in the UK is likely to be carried out by such practitioners and so we intend to submit these guidelines to the CQC for their use in the inspection of premises involved in liposuction.”

Source location

2020-0260-Response-from-BAAPS-and-BAPRAS_Redacted.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 30 December 2020

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Forward the guidelines to the coroner for inspection before publication.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will forward the guidelines for your inspection prior to publication.”

Source location

2020-0260-Response-from-BAAPS-and-BAPRAS_Redacted.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 30 December 2020

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Develop combined UK guidelines for the safe use of liposuction, covering lipoedema, cosmetic procedures, hospital support, pre-assessment and multidisciplinary review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We write in response to your Regulation 28 Report to prevent further deaths in relation to liposuction and the treatment of lipoedema. As a result of this request, both associations (BAPRAS & BAAPS) have agreed to work in partnership to create guidelines for the use of liposuction in the UK.”

Source location

2020-0260-Response-from-BAAPS-and-BAPRAS_Redacted.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 30 December 2020

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Establish a joint BAAPS and BAPRAS expert panel with relevant surgical, anaesthetic and stakeholder representation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In order to create the guidelines, we have set up a joint BAAPS & BAPRAS expert panel. This panel will include invited expert members of both surgical associations, a member of the Association of Anaesthetists and any other relevant stakeholders that the co-chairs believe to be appropriate. Their report is intended to cover not only the specifics of the procedure but also the level of hospital support required, any pre-assessment needs and the potential need for a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meeting for lipoedema patients. It is hoped that we can produce this report within the next six months and that it will be adopted by the wider sector, including those practitioners who are not members of our associations.”

Source location

2020-0260-Response-from-BAAPS-and-BAPRAS_Redacted.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 30 December 2020

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. 1

    Consider updating existing liposuction guidance to add explicit safety detail for chronic lymphoedema.

    Stated by National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 30 December 2020.
  2. 2

    Publish a website notice explaining that existing guidance is under consideration because of safety concerns.

    Stated by National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 30 December 2020.
  3. 3

    Update the guidance webpage with the outcome of the safety-related considerations.

    Stated by National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 30 December 2020.

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Consider updating existing liposuction guidance to add explicit safety detail for chronic lymphoedema.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In view of the safety concerns raised by this case, the IP team will consider whether:”

Source location

2020-0260-Response-from-NICE_Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 30 December 2020

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Publish a website notice explaining that existing guidance is under consideration because of safety concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• the current recommendations in relation to the safety and efficacy of liposuction for chronic lymphoedema should be updated to allow the guidance to provide additional explicit detail on safety concerns. In the meantime, our website (www.nice.org.uk/ipg588) now explains that “We are considering whether we need to update this guidance in response to safety concerns” and the webpage will be updated with the outcome of these considerations, in due course.”

Source location

2020-0260-Response-from-NICE_Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 30 December 2020

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Update the guidance webpage with the outcome of the safety-related considerations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• the current recommendations in relation to the safety and efficacy of liposuction for chronic lymphoedema should be updated to allow the guidance to provide additional explicit detail on safety concerns. In the meantime, our website (www.nice.org.uk/ipg588) now explains that “We are considering whether we need to update this guidance in response to safety concerns” and the webpage will be updated with the outcome of these considerations, in due course.”

Source location

2020-0260-Response-from-NICE_Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 30 December 2020

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
3/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026