She was still suffering when she got home from the appointment and, about half an hour afterwards, her partner called the clinic saying he was concerned about her legs.
He was told by the clinic to apply ice, send photographs and for them to return to the clinic as soon as possible.
On arrival, it was clear that she had suffered burns and steps were then taken to understand what had happened.
According to a decision released yesterday, the clinician qualified as a level five beauty therapist six months earlier and had become qualified in laser hair removal only three weeks before the incident.
The woman attended the appointment in June 2021 for laser hair removal, which she had had before.
She told the HDC that before commencing the treatment, the clinician did not check the laser settings.
The clinician said she undertook her usual preparation, which included checking that the woman had provided informed consent noting the treatment number, taking notes of previous treatment plans, analysing hair growth, reviewing the notes on initial consultation and updating photos of the treated area, according to the findings.
Based on that information, she developed a treatment plan and adjusted the settings in accordance with the thickness of hair, skin type and genetic background before completing a double check to make sure the settings were correct, she said.
She told the HDC she performed a test patch prior to completing the full treatment. But the woman disputed that had been done.
The woman claimed she told the clinician to stop the treatment because of the pain, but the treatment continued.
The clinician told the HDC the woman did not ask her to stop the treatment, and that had she been asked, she would have stopped immediately.
Following the treatment, the woman’s legs were swollen, and when she asked the clinician whether that was ‘‘normal’’, she was told ‘‘yes’’.
The clinician applied recovery cream and sun protection
factor, and went over post-care information.
The clinician and the clinic told the HDC it was not uncommon for skin to swell and for some irritation to occur post-treatment.
When she returned after her partner’s call, various products were provided to help address the burn injuries.
The clinic told the HDC it advised her to visit Accident and Emergency, something the woman disputed.
The decision states that on reviewing the clinician’s notes the clinic discovered the clinician had mistakenly set the laser machine to the wrong skin type.
The clinic said it apologised and said that any costs for medical care would be reimbursed.
The HDC sought independent advice and it was identified that there were multiple departures from the accepted standard of care.
The laser burns were identified as a ‘‘severe’’ departure from the expected standard of care.
The HDC found it was more likely than not that a test patch did not occur and the level of pain reported during the procedure should have prompted the clinician to stop and reassess the situation.
The HDC found there was concern about the time it took the franchise head office to make contact with the woman directly, the lack of support provided to the clinic, and the six-month delay in providing a formal apology.
The HDC recommended that the clinician be audited by the clinic to check laser accuracy from 20 assessments, which would then be provided to the HDC. She was also told to provide evidence that refresher training on laser assessments had been completed and to apologise to the woman.
• Al Williams is an Open Justice reporter for The New Zealand Herald, based in Christchurch.
