Patch testing - who does?

I've been thinking about this a lot recently and a thread in biz geek about no win no fee solicitors has prompted me to give this some serious thought.

Who does a patch test for nail treatments where products are used that are known to be irritants i.e. monomer, acrylate based gels, power polish etc? We all know that these products can trigger some pretty nasty reactions in a small number of cases, and with the compensation culture it seems odd that we dont patch test as standard, but I am considering introducing it as a standard practice for acrylate based nail treatments and waxing treatments.

The only downside to this would be to effectively wipe out your walk-in trade, so is it a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, or is it something important that we should all do just in case we get that one customer who reacts badly and sues us?

'chelle said:

I've been thinking about this a lot recently and a thread in biz geek about no win no fee solicitors has prompted me to give this some serious thought.

Who does a patch test for nail treatments where products are used that are known to be irritants i.e. monomer, acrylate based gels, power polish etc? We all know that these products can trigger some pretty nasty reactions in a small number of cases, and with the compensation culture it seems odd that we dont patch test as standard, but I am considering introducing it as a standard practice for acrylate based nail treatments and waxing treatments.

The only downside to this would be to effectively wipe out your walk-in trade, so is it a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, or is it something important that we should all do just in case we get that one customer who reacts badly and sues us?

Click to expand...

Just how would you patch test ,monomer liquid?

In the first place monomer contains hundreds of different chemicals so how would you know which chemical the client was reacting to if they had a reaction?

2nd ... monomer is not supposed to go on a clients skin so why would you need to patch test? I think if you put neat monomer onto any clients skin for 12 hours or more that anyone would show a reaction to it, even if it was only a reddening of the skin.

3rd ... Any patch test would have to be supplied by the company and there just is not a need for it if you are doing your job correctly and carry out a good client consultation.

4th you should never patch test a client unless you know exactly what you are doing and this post just highlights how little one knows about it.

First rule of nails is never to use neat un-reacted monomer on a clients skin!

geeg said:

Just how would you patch test ,monomer liquid?

In the first place monomer contains hundreds of different chemicals so how would you know which chemical the client was reacting to if they had a reaction?

2nd ... monomer is not supposed to go on a clients skin so why would you need to patch test? I think if you put neat monomer onto any clients skin for 12 hours or more that anyone would show a reaction to it, even if it was only a reddening of the skin.

3rd ... Any patch test would have to be supplied by the company and there just is not a need for it if you are doing your job correctly and carry out a good client consultation.

4th you should never patch test a client unless you know exactly what you are doing and this post just highlights how little one knows about it.

First rule of nails is never to use neat un-reacted monomer on a clients skin!

Click to expand...

Wow. This site never ceases to amaze me. I was actually after some thoughts on the issue of patch testing in the practicality v's legal implications sense rather than a dressing down for how little I know about nails. I didnt suggest for one minute that I was about to start splashing monomer all over my clients to see if they react...

1) I'm a fully trained, qualified, insured and experienced nail tech. I am well aware that monomer should never come into contact with living tissue. this does not detract from the fact that, in a very rare number of cases, people can react adversely after having acrylics done even if the monomer did not come into contact with the skin. The way to patch test for this would not be to start painting your clients with unreacted monomer, but to apply one nail as a tester in the manner that you would normally apply nails to ensure that no adverse reaction occurred.

2) Its completely irrelevant what component of the acrylic the client reacted to, it would be enough that the client reacted to anything for you to be able to say you would not be comfortable offering that treatment

3) Its all good and well saying a patch test isnt necessary if you do your job well and carry out a good consultation, and maybe from a nail techs point of view thats true, but from a legal point of view I can assure you that as a qualified legal executive who practiced law for many years before becoming self employed, the legal profession would be all over you if a client had an allergic reaction after one of your treatments and you had not performed a patch test. I agree it seems very over the top, I said as much in my original post, but I am looking at this from a legal/insurance point of view, not my point of view as a nail tech.

4) I have no intention of performing patch tests "blind". I know exactly how to perform a patch test in so much as I know how to apply an acrylic nail, and as that would be my patch test then yes I do know what I'm doing.

Being totally honest it's not something I have considered and, as a mobile tech, I have no intention of introducing it unless I have to. It would have a serious impact on my earning ability and I can't see clients being happy with it......

I get so many phone calls from people wanting appts same day which 99% of the time I can't do because most of my business is regulars who book in advance - those people will not tolerate needing a patch test when many techs/salons wont bother, especially in this currently un-regulated industry. Who would enforce it?

Good thought process though 'Chelle, good thread.

If it starts with doing a test nail to patch test what could it end up with?

I was taught to only patch test (do one nail) if the client had previously had a sensitivity and you wanted to know if the product you use would be ok.

The same goes for waxing. Why on earth would I patch test for waxing when it's on the skin less time I can say ouch anyway?? If something was to occur you'd more or less see it straight away and I pride myself in choosing hypoallergenic products to avoid this in any instance.

What would be next I wonder...patch testing for doing a manicure to check they weren't allergic to the nail polish? Give me a break. This world has gone a little loopy and I'm tired of having to be super careful with everything just because someone says they'll sue me if I don't patch test for the after wax lotion...

Rant over. Just think patch testing for nails should only be done in certain circumstances.

Putting one nail on a client is not a patch test.

As soon as the monomer and polymer polymerise, the monomer becomes inert so wouldn't react with anything.

They do not even patch test for nails in the USA, the most litigious country in the world! Why would they? All nail products are FDA approved for use on nails .. Not skin. If a client had a history of allergy (which would come out in a client consultation) then she would have to sign my CRC to say that she was having her nails done at her own risk. In 25 years, I have never had to do this.

As for taking personal affront at my post ... It was general information to all, not just the poster. I know of cases where in complete ignorance, nail technicians have actually applied monomer to a patch and stuck it to the skin over night as is normal proceedure in any patch test I have ever come across. It needs to be made crystal clear to all that this should never be done.

Pinkbunny28 said:

The same goes for waxing. Why on earth would I patch test for waxing when it's on the skin less time I can say ouch anyway?? If something was to occur you'd more or less see it straight away and I pride myself in choosing hypoallergenic products to avoid this in any instance.

Click to expand...

I am allergic to wax, I had a sensitivity which I (stupidly) ingnored and then had a massive full-blown allergic reaction which involved Dr's and steroid based treatment. I left it ages and then decided to see if I would suffer the same reaction again so I went to a salon with a good reputation, explained my situation and they offered to patch test on what I pointed out to be the most sensitised area...... The result? Another allergic reaction so I phoned the salon, explained and thanked them for their time and understanding.

Whose responsibility was all this? IMHO my responsibility.....

P.s. I now have an epilator and do my own legs (when I can be bothered :lol

Vetty said:

I am allergic to wax, I had a sensitivity which I (stupidly) ingnored and then had a massive full-blown allergic reaction which involved Dr's and steroid based treatment. I left it ages and then decided to see if I would suffer the same reaction again so I went to a salon with a good reputation, explained my situation and they offered to patch test on what I pointed out to be the most sensitised area...... The result? Another allergic reaction so I phoned the salon, explained and thanked them for their time and understanding.

Whose responsibility was all this? IMHO my responsibility.....

P.s. I now have an epilator and do my own legs (when I can be bothered :lol

Click to expand...

Obviously if you had come to me and said that you had had a previous allergic reaction I would have done the same as the salon. Have you ever tried a hypoallergenic wax by any chance? x

Pinkbunny28 said:

Obviously if you had come to me and said that you had had a previous allergic reaction I would have done the same as the salon. Have you ever tried a hypoallergenic wax by any chance? x

Click to expand...

Just a question how would you patch test wax if this situatiion arrised???

MUAmummy said:

Just a question how would you patch test wax if this situatiion arrised???

Click to expand...

Wax a little patch in the most sensitive area which will be waxed. That's what I'd do x

Wow crazy thread. Iv never even thought of half this stuff. As for patch testing I can honestly say I have never even been to a hair stylist who patch tests with dye, or known one who has....i how ever for sure belive it is up to the customer to tell you if they have an allergy. If a client ever came to me and said "im allergic to ----" I would make them check the ingrediants them selves and if they were still unsure I just wouldnt to the service.

I myself the acid in primer makes makes my cuticals and surrounding area break out bad, which is why I either wear acidless primer or stick to gels. Trial and error right.

If a person is nervous about getting sued they could have a sign that said

"for insurance purposes all allergys must be reported to tech before the service"

Jocie said:

If a person is nervous about getting sued they could have a sign that said

"for insurance purposes all allergys must be reported to tech before the service"

Click to expand...

I personally would not bother patch testing nails your using only the nail bed and to be fair u should not need to if you are using a well known industry brand such as nsi or cnd that do not contain mma and you do good client consultation and the client signs then your fine
the only thing id patch test is lash tint and hair dye as these go on pores on the skin such as hair folicles, scalp ,skin ect as thats standard in practise.. but as i suppose if you are worried as a therapist then go with what your heart is leading you to do :wink2:

beautybemine15 said:

I personally would not bother patch testing nails your using only the nail bed and to be fair u should not need to if you are using a well known industry brand such as nsi or cnd that do not contain mma and you do good client consultation and the client signs then your fine
the only thing id patch test is lash tint and hair dye as these go on pores on the skin such as hair folicles, scalp ,skin ect as thats standard in practise.. but as i suppose if you are worried as a therapist then go with what your heart is leading you to do :wink2:

Click to expand...

I agree, I wasnt saying I would put a sign up I just ment if you were nervous you could. I have never had a problem so im not worried, but I do know of parinoid people who do. They are not insured though (ekkk scary)

look, I agree with you all, patch testing for nails and waxing does seem very over the top when you consider how rare an allergic reaction to these services is, and how mild that reaction generally is. I'm not suggesting that I think its reasonable or proportionate to start patch testing, and of course it also means wiping out your walk in trade.

BUT....

Take a look on Biz geek at the thread about no win no fee solicitors specialising in beauty treatment problems and read the link to the website. These solicitors are making successful claims for very minor injuries (e.g the woman who won thousands after her skin was nipped by the thread during a threading treatment). All over this website it says that patch tests should be carried out before any treatment, and having legal qualifications myself and knowing how that particular industry works, I just know that if a customer did have an allergic reaction to a product but a patch test was not performed prior to it, that in itself would be grounds for a claim against you. It doesn't matter that the products are designed for use on nails/skin, and it doesnt matter that you've done a consultation in which the client doesnt declare the allergy. Unless it can be proved that the client was aware of this allergy and didnt disclose it, the courts would still rule that the therapist had a duty of care to perform a patch test (or test nail whatever you prefer to call it).

I will be checking with my insurers today to see what their views are, and I'm not suggesting I'm about to start patch testing everyone, but its just interesting to see what everyone's view is on the practicality of running a salon v's the freak chance of someone reacting badly and suing the pants off you, because you can be guaranteed that if someone did sue you, the fact that you did/didnt perform a patch test would be what the whole case hinged on.

As far as i know, you do have to patch test for wax anyway. Both warm & hot.

Jurate xx

We'll be patch testing for water next. Some people have hard water and some have soft... :/ x

Pinkbunny28 said:

We'll be patch testing for water next. Some people have hard water and some have soft... :/ x

Click to expand...

Lol, but it is true its a pity that everything is heading such a way

Jurate xx

I just wanted to show you what a reaction to gel nails can look like.

Not pretty and extremely painful.

I have just finished being patch tested by a consultant dermatologist at my local hospital who advises that reactions like mine are on the increase.

I wasn't wearing enhancements myself but this was caused simply by working on clients with Gelish/OPI Gelcolour etc.

Could you get clients to fill in & sign their consultation form & have something written on your form for them to sign saying they are unaware of any allergies they might have to these products & are happy for you to continue with their service without an allergy test.

I know these "no win no fee" people are scary....they have cost the NHS a fortune, but
how can someone sue if they have given you permission?

I know when I first started hairdressing (about 30 years ago) a lady came into the salon knowing she had a severe allergy & tried to sue my boss afterwards........fortunately for him he knew one of the other salons she had done it to too, otherwise he would have ended up paying up.
It is sad but there are people out there just looking for a way to make a quick buck at someone else's expense.