Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website for the Centre for Medical Sciences and Research, www.cfmsr.org.uk, appearing in April 2022, featured text stating, “LONDON MEDICAL SCHOOL” and “LONDON’S LEADING CLINICAL SKILLS AND AESTHETIC MEDICINE TRAINING PROVIDER".
Issue
1. Wandsworth Trading Standards challenged whether the use of the term ‘Medical School’ was misleading because it implied it was a provider of education for medical practices, specifically Primary Medical Qualifications.
2. The ASA challenged whether “London’s leading clinical skills and aesthetic medicine training provider” was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1. The Centre for Medical Sciences and Research Ltd t/a London Medical School and Aesthetics Clinic said that since being established in February 2016 they were now widely recognised among NHS Trusts, Universities and Clinics for the provision of clinical skills training and that they were registered with the British Government’s UK Register of Learning Providers (UKRLP). Their courses were accredited and certified by the CPD Group which was a nationally recognised accreditation and certification body. They said trading under London Medical School and Aesthetics Clinic was to reflect the nature of their training that was on offer. They said they were engaged in training PhD research students from Universities in London and Oxford, including Imperial College London and Kings College London.
They stated that all UK universities had a website with a domain ac.uk. As their website domain was not ac.uk, they felt their website was transparent with regard to the courses they provided.
The Centre for Medical Sciences and Research gave several dictionary definitions of the word ‘school’, and did not believe consumers would be misled by its use in the ad.
2. The Centre for Medical Sciences and Research said that they provided clinical skills to major NHS Trusts and universities. Therefore, by volume of training (student numbers) and quality, they considered it was fair and accurate to state that they were a ‘leading provider’.
They provided several examples of suppliers’ forms for NHS trusts including Imperial College, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and Kings College as well as the invoices for two PHD university students who undertook training at the Centre for Medical Sciences and Research.
They said they had delivered 1,337 individual courses to approximately 203 NHS staff members and 110 university students. They were not aware of any other London-based school that was providing training on such a scale or volume, and believed this clearly justified the wording “leading provider”.
They said reputable universities and NHS Trusts were choosing their school instead of other schools for training of staff, and they did not feel misled. It followed that they were a leading training provider on the market. As a further assurance of quality, their courses were assessed and accredited by CPD Group.
They said both directors of the company were Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) registered nurses. They delivered, among other things, courses provided by General Medical Council (GMC) to registered medical doctors. The quality of their training was exceptional. Both directors were altruistic individuals who, prior to establishing the School, spent their careers working for charities helping people into education, employment and housing. Since 2006, until Centre for Medical Sciences & Research Ltd was set up, both directors worked for several charities.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the use of the term Medical School to refer to an educational institution that provided training for a career in medicine, specifically to become a doctor through completion of a Primary Medical Qualification (PMQ). In addition, that they would understand that any establishment deemed to be a medical school, and therefore the training it provided, was regulated by the GMC. We considered the use of the name London Medical School implied that the establishment held the same status as a Medical School that was registered and regulated by the GMC, and that it trained Doctors in the UK PMQ.
We accepted that the training provided by the Centre for Medical Science and Research was registered with the UKRLP. However, we noted that this body did not quality assure or accredit the learning provision of registered providers in any way. Whilst the Centre for Medical Science and Research was registered with the CPD group, we considered those registrations were not equivalent to being registered with the GMC.
Because the Centre for Medical Sciences and Research was not registered with the GMC and did not provide UK PMQ training, we concluded that the claim “Medical School” in the training provider’s name was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation).
2. Upheld
We considered that, in the absence of further qualification on the website and within the context of the educational environment, the use of the claim “London’s leading clinical skills and aesthetic medicine training provider” was ambiguous. We considered it would be understood by consumers to mean that they led every other London-based provider in terms of number of students or as measured objectively and independently in terms of the quality of the education provided. We therefore expected to see evidence to substantiate the claim on that basis, including evidence showing a comparison with all other relevant providers.
We considered that evidence showing two examples of students attending their training did not substantiate their claim that they were leading in terms of their students’ numbers when compared against other London training establishments providing the same courses. Similarly, we did not receive any evidence to support the claim that the Centre for Medical Sciences and Research were a leading provider in terms of the quality of their courses. We did not consider the fact that certain universities or Trusts had used their service was evidence that they were “London’s leading provider” in terms of quality, and nor did we consider that the number of courses delivered was evidence of being the leading provider in terms of numbers, since no comparison had been made with other providers.
Given the above, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading Advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation).
Action
The claims must not appear again in their current form. We told the Centre for Medical Sciences and Research Ltd t/a London Medical School and Aesthetics Clinic not to mislead through the use of the term ‘Medical School’, or to misleadingly imply they were an educational institution that provided training for a career in medicine, a Primary Medical Qualification. We also told them not to misleadingly claim that they were “leading” if they did not hold evidence to substantiate their claim.
