Patch testing - who does?

[Pooh8bear]

View attachment 18230

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.

Ooochhh......You poor thing.x

How long had you been working with gel? Do you think this was the gel or remover or one of the other products.
I got itching & blisters from the sanitiser so I now wear gloves & seem to be ok (touch wood)

Has this stopped you working with gel polish now or can you if wearing gloves?

 

['chelle]

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.

In law you cannot limit or exclude liability for death or personal injury. Even if you tried to add a disclaimer to your consultation cards, that clause would be invalid in court. There's also the "duty of care" issue, which is what the courts would look at, I can say for certain that a court would decide that you have a duty of care to patch test/nail test clients to check for allergies.

Its totally ridiculous of course the way the compensation culture has blown up, but for the minority of people its really important, sorry I didnt see who posted it but someone above has posted a picture of an allergic reaction to gel polish and it looks pretty nasty, so it just a question of striking the right balance between being completely over zealous, and protecting clients from allergies and of course protecting yourself from being sued.

One thought I had today was this: if a new client books an appointment I will ask if they have had nails/waxing before. If the answer is yes and they confirm that they have not suffered a reaction to any of the products, and they sign a declaration saying as much, I will do them without a patch test. If it is a brand new client who's never had that treatment before I will patch test. I think thats a sensible compromise, whats everyone elses thoughts?

 

[AcidPerm]

My consultant has told me that I can't even be in the same room as someone practising enhancements now as I've become highly sensitised to the acrylates in the products and just the dust will probably set off a reaction, which ultimately may affect my respiratory system so it's not a situation to be taken lightly. (I was tested for a wide range of acrylates after obtaining the product MSDS sheets for the consultant to work with.)

However, I had been working with Gel products for almost a year before my finger tips started splitting and blistering. Therefore, even with patch testing, a strong reaction like mine may not occur for some time. Initially, I just felt a bit tingly but over time, the reactions became more severe.

Obviously, I'm not planning on suing anyone, lol. However, if you have a client that starts to exhibit similar symptoms, please be wary abut continuing with the service and do refer them to their GP or medical practitioner for further advice and write this on their record card/notes.

That way, you are covering yourself if someone does suffer an extreme reaction.

 

[Annemarie]

View attachment 18230

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.

That's exactly how my hands went when I was using another brand of gel a few years back. I had to stop using it. I use Brisa now and have not had a problem.

 

[Vetty]

Have you ever tried a hypoallergenic wax by any chance? x

I haven't tbh, the reaction was horrible and took months to settle down even with steroid cream. I don't want to risk it happening again......

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

That is exactly what the salon did for me.

 

[geeg]

My consultant has told me that I can't even be in the same room as someone practising enhancements now as I've become highly sensitised to the acrylates in the products and just the dust will probably set off a reaction, which ultimately may affect my respiratory system so it's not a situation to be taken lightly. (I was tested for a wide range of acrylates after obtaining the product MSDS sheets for the consultant to work with.)

However, I had been working with Gel products for almost a year before my finger tips started splitting and blistering. Therefore, even with patch testing, a strong reaction like mine may not occur for some time. Initially, I just felt a bit tingly but over time, the reactions became more severe.

Obviously, I'm not planning on suing anyone, lol. However, if you have a client that starts to exhibit similar symptoms, please be wary abut continuing with the service and do refer them to their GP or medical practitioner for further advice and write this on their record card/notes.

That way, you are covering yourself if someone does suffer an extreme reaction.

Isn't it GRAND that neither CND Brisa gel, nor Shellac contain any Acrylates?? :green:

 

[Envy]

for any reading this who want some more indepth information on Allergies & allergic reactions, take a read of the link below:

Science topic: Allergies

Regarding the original post - I personally do not agree with 'patch testing' for this reason:

If you expose soft tissue to a known irritant you are actually helping set that client up for a reaction at some point down the track....
I personally would rather explain this to my insurance and request another indemnity form or process from them that allowed me to be covered WITHOUT overexposing my client to a known allergen..

hth's

 

[nicole333]

My insurance company stipulate asking about allergies, my record card asks about allergies and the client signs that the information is correct.

The procedure is carried out as it should be so that no product touches the skin. I can't see how anything more can be done, as it's impossible to see into the future.

But if everything is done as it should be, can these no win no fee companies still get a result?

 

['chelle]

for any reading this who want some more indepth information on Allergies & allergic reactions, take a read of the link below:

Science topic: Allergies

Regarding the original post - I personally do not agree with 'patch testing' for this reason:

If you expose soft tissue to a known irritant you are actually helping set that client up for a reaction at some point down the track....
I personally would rather explain this to my insurance and request another indemnity form or process from them that allowed me to be covered WITHOUT overexposing my client to a known allergen..

hth's

I completely agree, irritants like monomer should never come into contact with soft tissue, I'm not suggesting we patch test by dabbing monomer on the skin. I'm suggesting that we "patch test" by applying one nail in the manner that you would normally apply a nail. In very rare cases people can still react to products applied to the nail even though those products havent come into contact with the skin.

Like I said before, I'm not looking at this from a nail tech point of view, I'm looking at it from a legal point of view. Having many years experience in legal practice I can say with confidence that even if a nail tech does everything they're supposed to in terms of current standard practice, there could still be very strong grounds for a successful claim in the absence of a patch test/sample nail test (whatever you want to call it)

 

[geeg]

Seems to me that using the OP's train of thought, every hairdresser should be patch testing for .. Let's see:

Shampoo
Hairspray
Mousse
Gels

Perhaps all of those things if they are going to be used at the same appointment? What an inconvenience even to the client who just wants to get on and get her hair done! Especially as all these things have already been passed as safe to use professionally on clients ... Just like nail enhancement products.

 

[AcidPerm]

Isn't it GRAND that neither CND Brisa gel, nor Shellac contain any Acrylates?? :green:

Hi Geeg,

According to the MSDS sheets provided by CND, Brisa Gel contains:
URETHANE METHACRYLATE OLIGOMERS
METHACRYLATE MONOMERS

Therefore, sadly, I still can't use these either.




 

[geeg]

Hi Geeg,

According to the MSDS sheets provided by CND, Brisa Gel contains:
URETHANE METHACRYLATE OLIGOMERS
METHACRYLATE MONOMERS

Therefore, sadly, I still can't use these either.




If you are allergic to those, then that is a shame but don't get confused, methacrylates are not the same as Acrylates. Many make that mistake.

 

[AcidPerm]

Hi Geeg

I agree it's confusing.

I've got the letter from my consultant in front of me and there is a general heading Acrylates.

Underneath is a list of 21 chemicals containing the word acrylate within them.

Methyl methacrylate, n-Butyl methacrylate, Urethane dimethacrylate, Hexanediol diacrylate etc...

I think Acrylate is a generic term covering a family of acrylate based chemicals.

For me, I think it's safer to avoid anything with any type of acrylate in it. :sad:

 

[Pinkbunny28]

I was actually considering asking which acrylates are safe etc. don't think there is a black and white answer though.

I think it's fairly obvious that someone somewhere will be allergic to something and it's just simply unlucky if they come across it.