A 360° Approach to Patient Care in Aesthetic Facial Rejuvenation

Abstract

Background: Aesthetic medicine has traditionally focused on addressing perceived problem areas, with lack of long-term planning and engagement.

Objectives: This article describes a patient-centric model for nonsurgical aesthetic medical practice, termed the 360° approach to facial aesthetic rejuvenation.

Methods: The 360° approach was divided into 4 foundational pillars. Medical literature, the authors' clinical experiences, and results from patient satisfaction surveys were used to support the approach.

Results: Pillar 1 describes the development of a complete understanding of the patient, based on the use of active listening principles, to characterize the patient's current aesthetic concerns, lifestyle, medical and treatment history, treatment goals, attitude toward aesthetic treatment, and financial resources. Pillar 2 involves conducting a comprehensive facial assessment in contrast to a feature-specific assessment, considering multiple facial tissues and structures and their interrelationships, thus helping to prevent the unanticipated consequences of narrowly focused treatment. Pillar 3 describes leveraging all available treatments and techniques in the development of an initial treatment plan arising from the facial assessment. Pillar 4 adds a time dimension to treatment planning, working toward the goal of a long-term modifiable treatment timeline, with full patient support and involvement; this is designed to facilitate a durable, sustained relationship between the patient and aesthetic healthcare professional (HCP).

Conclusions: Although implementation involves substantial commitment and time, the patient-oriented focus of the 360° approach can help achieve optimal patient outcomes and the development of enduring patient-HCP relationships.

Figure 1.

Quality of aesthetic medicine consultations: results of a patient satisfaction survey (covering ∼9900 surveys; data on file, AbbVie). (A) Overall satisfaction vs “How well the provider answered questions.” (B) Overall satisfaction vs “How well the provider explained treatment options.” (C) Overall satisfaction vs “How well the provider listened.”

Figure 2.

How putative facial problem areas are perceived by ourselves (left) and others (right).

Figure 3.

(A) Facial shape assessments. (B) Evaluating dynamic effects. (C) Assessing symmetry and balance. The patient shown in B and C is a female who was 43 years of age at the time of treatment.