Council or Board notification · All 18 responsible authorities

Duty of Candour for Healthcare Professionals for Health Practitioners facing a Council or Board investigation, complaint or allegation

Something went wrong, and the allegation concerns what the patient and their whānau were told afterwards.

Not told — the patient never told what happened, or told by someone else
Told late — the conversation came weeks later, or only when they asked
Told part — what was left out was the part that mattered
No apology — none given, or one with a clause that withdrew it
Minimised — the harm described as unavoidable, or the distress unseen
Near miss — kept quiet because no harm followed
Record — a disclosure never written down, or written up later
Any other — concern about openness after something went wrong

Facing an allegation of a failure of candour or misconduct like these — from the Council or Board, a Professional Conduct Committee or the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal?

Help with a Council or Board investigation, complaint or allegation starts here. This CPD course helps you remediate — and demonstrate the remediation, with a dated certificate for your written response, your portfolio or a Committee or Tribunal direction.

Buy this course — NZ$200 Bulk buy — any five or ten courses

Immediate access · certificate on completion · twelve months' access

2 CPD hours
Self-paced
Every registered profession
CPD certificate
Bulk buy: any 5 for NZ$850 · any 10 for NZ$1,400

At a glance

Who it is for: Any registered practitioner facing a Council or Board complaint, notification or allegation, a Professional Conduct Committee investigation or a competence review about what a patient and their whānau were told after something went wrong
Authorities covered: All 18 responsible authorities under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003, their Professional Conduct Committees and the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal
Length: 10 sections, 93 lessons, 2 CPD hours
Format: Self-paced, online, immediate access, twelve months from purchase
Certificate: Issued by Healthcare Ethics Courses on completion, dated, with the course title and 2 CPD hours
Price: NZ$200 · any 5 for NZ$850 · any 10 for NZ$1,400

Certificate issued by Healthcare Ethics CoursesRemediation courses for regulatory processes.

2CPD hours, issued by Healthcare Ethics Courses

10Sections, nine closing with a reflective quiz

91Lessons, plus a post-course assessment

NZ$200One off. Twelve months' access

Who this course is for

Facing an allegation that the patient was not told, or told late

An error, an adverse event, a complication, a result missed — and the conversation that should have followed did not, or came weeks later, or came only when the patient asked. This course is written for the conversation now had, properly, and the response that shows it.

Dealing with a Council or Board complaint

The complaint arrives with the patient’s account and any incident review, and the Registrar asks for your response. A disclosure since made, an apology given and a protocol in place can end the matter here; this course gives the response the structure every authority reads for.

The apology, or the record, is the concern

Not given, given with a clause that withdrew it, or refused on advice; a conversation that happened but was not documented, or was documented later in a tone the patient would not recognise. The course gives apologies and documentation a section each.

A complaint with the Health and Disability Commissioner

A complaint about a patient’s care goes to the Commissioner first, and your Council or Board can act on public safety meanwhile. The Commissioner’s usual recommendations — an apology, an audit repeated after an interval, a written reflection, training — are the remediation this course is built for.

Before a Professional Conduct Committee

Members of your own profession and a layperson, with a legal adviser, investigate independently, read your response beside the record and the messages, and usually meet you. They can recommend counselling or a review, decide on no further action or conciliation, or lay a charge before the Tribunal.

Facing a misconduct charge or hearing before the Tribunal

A charge has been laid, or a penalty is being decided. A doctor who told a patient a melanoma was not cancer was suspended; a nurse who told no one of a medication error for two days was censured and barred from practice without ethics training. Remediation completed before the hearing — the disclosure made, the apology given — is weighed every time.

The concerns this course speaks to

Not told, or told by someone else

The patient learned what happened from another practitioner, an incident review or a letter, or never learned it at all. Right 6 of the Code of Rights gives every patient the right to be fully informed, every authority’s standard requires openness when care has caused harm, and the Tribunal suspended a doctor who told a patient a melanoma was not cancer.

Delayed or partial disclosure

The patient told weeks later, or told only part, or told when they asked rather than when you knew. Timing is a lesson of its own in the course, and a disclosure made now — late but full — is the remediation every authority reads for first.

Defensive or legalistic communication

A conversation conducted as if it were a statement, an explanation that placed the event with the system or the patient, an apology with a clause. The course covers open disclosure as a conversation with a patient and whānau, and the language that preserves trust rather than protecting the practitioner.

The apology

Not given, given without meaning it, or refused on advice. An apology is an expression of regret, not an admission of legal liability, and under the accident compensation scheme most treatment injuries are compensated without fault being found — so every authority expects it to be made, and reads its absence as a candour failure.

Harm or the patient’s experience minimised

The outcome described as unavoidable, the distress not acknowledged, the impact on whānau not seen. Harm is not limited to physical injury in the course’s treatment, and acknowledging harm, distress and impact has its own lesson.

Near misses, and the error reported late

A near miss kept quiet because no harm followed; an error realised and not reported. A nurse who gave the wrong patient’s medication and told no one for two days was found guilty of professional misconduct for the silence as well as the error; the duty applies to what happened, not to who was at fault.

The record

A conversation that happened but was not documented, or was documented later, or a record amended after the event to say the conversation occurred. Documentation is the evidence of candour; a record added now is dated as an addition, and a record altered turns a candour matter into a probity one.

Whānau, culture and any other concern

A disclosure made to the patient alone where whānau should have been present, or without tikanga. For a Māori patient a disclosure is made in partnership, with whānau present where the patient wishes. Any allegation about openness is measured against your own authority’s standard — the course shows you how to find it and answer it.

Facing a Council or Board investigation, complaint or allegation? This course helps you remediate — and demonstrate it.

Buy this course — NZ$200

What the course covers

Ten sections and 93 lessons, with a reflective quiz closing each of the first nine and a post-course assessment at the end.

Section 01

Introduction to Duty of Candour in New Zealand

Eight lessons

Section 02

What Duty of Candour Means in Practice

Ten lessons

Section 03

When Things Go Wrong – Adverse Events and Harm

Ten lessons

Section 04

Open Disclosure and Communication With Patients and Whānau

Ten lessons

Section 05

Apologies, Responsibility, and Professional Accountability

Ten lessons

Section 06

Documentation and Evidence of Candour

Eleven lessons

Section 07

Common Pitfalls, Complaints, and Investigations

Eleven lessons

Section 08

Regulatory Expectations and Fitness to Practise

Ten lessons

Section 09

Reflection, Insight, and Remediation After Candour Failures

Eleven lessons

Section 10

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Key takeaways and the post-course assessment

Show every lesson title

Section 01 · Introduction to Duty of Candour in New Zealand: What Is the Duty of Candour?; Why Duty of Candour Is Central to Safe Healthcare; Candour, Transparency, and Patient Rights in New Zealand; Professional Expectations of Candour; Candour Is About Professional Behaviour, Not Blame; Individual and System Responsibility; Why Failures of Candour Escalate Concerns; The Purpose of This Course.
Section 02 · What Duty of Candour Means in Practice: Duty of Candour as Everyday Professional Behaviour; Clinical Situations Where Duty of Candour Applies; Understanding Harm From the Patient’s Perspective; Individual Responsibility Within Team and System-Based Care; Timing of Candour: Acting Early and Appropriately; What Candour Requires You to Communicate; What Duty of Candour Does Not Require; Apologies and Professional Accountability; Candour and Professional Standards in New Zealand; Duty of Candour as an Ongoing Process.
Section 03 · When Things Go Wrong – Adverse Events and Harm: Understanding What "Things Going Wrong" Means in Healthcare; Defining Adverse Events in Practice; Harm Is Not Limited to Physical Injury; Unexpected Outcomes Without Error; Near Misses and Potential Harm; The Role of Systems, Teams, and Context; Why Patients and Whānau Want Disclosure; Emotional Impact on Healthcare Professionals; Regulatory Perspective on Adverse Events; Linking Adverse Events to Duty of Candour.
Section 04 · Open Disclosure and Communication With Patients and Whānau: What Open Disclosure Means in New Zealand Healthcare; Preparing for an Open Disclosure Conversation; Conducting the Initial Disclosure Conversation; Acknowledging Harm, Distress, and Impact; Managing Uncertainty During Disclosure; Involving Whānau and Cultural Considerations; Consistency Across the Healthcare Team; Regulatory Expectations Around Open Disclosure; When Disclosure Is Difficult or Challenged; Open Disclosure as Trust-Preserving Practice.
Section 05 · Apologies, Responsibility, and Professional Accountability: Why Apologies Matter in Healthcare Practice; Understanding What an Apology Is — and Is Not; What Makes an Apology Effective; Apologies in Situations Without Clear Error; Responsibility in Complex Healthcare Systems; Saying Sorry on Behalf of the Organisation; Accountability Without Self-Blame; How Regulators View Apologies and Accountability; Apologies, Complaints, and Escalation; Apologies as Part of Professional Integrity.
Section 06 · Documentation and Evidence of Candour: Why Documentation Is Central to Duty of Candour; What Should Be Documented After an Adverse Event; Recording Disclosure Conversations; Documenting Apologies and Expressions of Regret; Objectivity, Tone, and Language in Records; Timing of Documentation; Retrospective Amendments and Corrections; Electronic Records, Emails, and Informal Communication; Consistency Across Documentation and Statements; Regulatory Expectations Around Documentation; Documentation as Protection, Not Punishment.
Section 07 · Common Pitfalls, Complaints, and Investigations: Why Failures of Candour Commonly Lead to Complaints; Delayed or Partial Disclosure; Defensive or Legalistic Communication; Inconsistent Explanations and Mixed Messages; Poor or Absent Documentation of Candour; Minimising Harm or Patient Experience; Complaints Progressing to Formal Investigations; How Employers and Organisations Investigate Candour; Regulatory Perspective on Candour Failures; Learning From Complaints and Investigations; Behaviours That Reduce Escalation Risk.
Section 08 · Regulatory Expectations and Fitness to Practise: How Duty of Candour Is Viewed by Regulators in New Zealand; When Candour Concerns Escalate to Regulatory Level; What "Fitness to Practise" Means in Candour Cases; How Regulators Assess Candour in Practice; Insight as a Central Regulatory Consideration; Professional Behaviour During Regulatory Processes; Candour Failures as Stand-Alone Professional Concerns; Possible Regulatory Outcomes in Candour Cases; The Importance of Early Engagement and Remediation; Candour and Public Confidence.
Section 09 · Reflection, Insight, and Remediation After Candour Failures: Why Reflection Is Essential After a Candour Concern; What Regulators Mean by "Insight"; Reflecting on Why Candour Failed; Reflecting on Patient and Whānau Impact; Reflecting on Professional Standards and Expectations; From Reflection to Remediation; Examples of Effective Remediation After Candour Failures; Demonstrating Remediation to Employers and Regulators; Timing and Proactivity in Remediation; Rebuilding Trust After Candour Failures; Reflection and Remediation as Ongoing Skills.
Section 10 · Conclusion and Key Takeaways: Conclusion; Key Takeaways.

How to respond to a Council or Board notification, complaint or allegation

Every Council or Board, a Professional Conduct Committee and the Tribunal read a candour response as the story of a conversation: whether it happened, when, what it contained, and what has changed. The course teaches each part.

The duty was to the patient, not to the record.

What happened, and when you knewThe event, the harm or the near miss, and the moment you understood the patient needed to be told — in order, in the first person, with the record beside it.The course covers adverse events, harm that is not physical, near misses and unexpected outcomes without error.
The conversation — or why it did not happenWhen, who was present, what was said about what happened, what it meant and what would be done, and whether the apology was made and how.The open disclosure conversation and the apology each have a section of their own.
The effect on the patient and whānauOf the harm, and separately of the delay, the omission or the way they were told — in their terms.The course shows how to describe the effect without arguing the complaint.
What has changedThe disclosure made now and recorded, the apology given, an open disclosure protocol, an audit of incidents against disclosures, near misses now disclosed.This course is the dated item you attach — and candour is remediated by doing the thing that was not done.

A late disclosure done well, and a protocol now followed, is how a delay is remediated.

Take advice from your indemnity insurer, your union or a lawyer before you respond to anyone.

Facing a Council or Board investigation, complaint or allegation? This course helps you remediate — and demonstrate it.

Buy this course — NZ$200

How this course helps with a Council or Board investigation

What candour requires and what it does not, the conversation after harm with patients and whānau, apologies, documentation, and the response and remediation that answer a candour concern.

It covers adverse events, harm and near misses

What things going wrong means; adverse events defined; harm that is not physical; unexpected outcomes without error; near misses and potential harm; the role of systems, teams and context; why patients and whānau want disclosure; the emotional impact on the practitioner; and how the authorities regard adverse events.

It teaches the open disclosure conversation and the apology

Preparing for the conversation; conducting the initial disclosure; acknowledging harm, distress and impact; managing uncertainty; involving whānau and cultural considerations; consistency across the team; when disclosure is difficult or challenged. Then apologies: what an apology is and is not, what makes one effective, apologies where there is no clear error, and how the authorities read them.

It makes documentation the evidence of candour

What to document after an adverse event; recording disclosure conversations and apologies; objectivity, tone and timing; retrospective additions and corrections; consistency across documentation and statements. Counts: the disclosure made now, properly, and recorded; the apology given; an open disclosure protocol the practice follows; an audit of incidents and near misses against disclosures, repeated after an interval; this course’s dated certificate and CPD on candour and communication; supervision with reports where the authority asks; near misses now disclosed and reported routinely. Counts for little: a record amended to say the conversation happened, an apology with a clause, the system or the patient offered as the reason, hours on another subject. For the stages from the first letter to the Tribunal, see the Council and Board investigation process, explained.

It brings it to the pitfalls, the investigation and the response

Delayed or partial disclosure, defensive communication, inconsistent explanations, poor documentation, minimising — and the behaviours that reduce escalation. Then how employers and the authorities investigate candour, what fitness to practise means in a candour case, insight as the central consideration, and early engagement. And reflection on why candour failed, on patient and whānau impact and on the standard; effective remediation after a candour failure; demonstrating it; timing and proactivity; and rebuilding trust. For the stages from the first letter to the Tribunal, see the fitness to practise process, explained.

Read the primary sources

Who wrote it

Dr Shehzad Iqbal

Course author and facilitator, Healthcare Ethics New Zealand

Dr Iqbal has designed and delivered ethics, probity and professionalism training for healthcare professionals since 2020, working with registrants across regulated health professions, online and face to face. He combines clinical practice with formal postgraduate training in healthcare law and ethics.

MBBS · MRCS · MRCGP · Postgraduate Certificate in Healthcare Law and Ethics, University of Dundee

Written and reviewed by Dr Shehzad Iqbal. Last reviewed September 2026.

In short

Duty of Candour for Healthcare Professionals is a two-hour remediation course, self-paced, for any practitioner facing a notification, investigation, complaint or allegation before one of New Zealand’s 18 responsible authorities. It defines the duty as every authority’s standard states it — openness when care has caused harm or nearly did — and treats candour as behaviour rather than blame. It covers what candour requires and what it does not, adverse events and harm including near misses and outcomes without error, the open disclosure conversation with patients and whānau, apologies and accountability, documentation as the evidence of candour, the pitfalls that lead to complaints, how employers and the authorities investigate a candour concern, what fitness to practise means in a candour case, and the reflection and remediation that answer one. Ten sections with a reflective quiz after each of the first nine, a post-course assessment, and a dated certificate from Healthcare Ethics Courses for your recertification. Remediation, not advice: the course decides no matter, and your indemnity insurer, your union or association or a lawyer should read anything before it goes to your authority.

What New Zealand’s Councils and Boards mean by candour

There is no statute by that name in New Zealand, and the duty is no weaker for it. Every authority’s standard of ethical conduct under section 118 of the Act requires a practitioner to be open and honest with a patient when something has gone wrong — the Medical Council’s statement on disclosure of harm, the Nursing Council’s Code, the Dental Council’s standards, the Chiropractic Board’s and Physiotherapy Board’s standards on adverse events — and Right 6 of the Code of Rights gives every patient the right to be fully informed. A failure to disclose, a delay, a partial account or a defensive one is conduct, whichever profession.

Two things are New Zealand-specific. The accident compensation scheme: because treatment injury is compensated without fault being found, the fear that an apology creates a claim has little force here, and the authorities expect the apology to be made. Whānau and Te Tiriti o Waitangi: a disclosure to a Māori patient is made in partnership, with whānau present where the patient wishes and with tikanga observed.

What these words mean

The three terms that decide where a matter goes, and the other words the course uses.

Professional Conduct Committee: The committee the Council or Board appoints under s 71 of the Act to investigate a conduct concern: two members of the profession and a layperson with a legal adviser. It asks for your written response, may hear from you, and recommends anything from no further action, through counselling and a competence or health review, to a charge before the Tribunal (s 80).
Professional misconduct: The Tribunal’s ground under s 100 of the Act: malpractice or negligence in your scope of practice, or conduct that has brought or was likely to bring discredit to the profession. Dishonesty, a boundary breach and a breach of confidence are among the findings made under it.
Apology: An expression of regret for what happened and its effect, without a clause that explains it away. Not an admission of legal liability, and expected by every authority; under the accident compensation scheme most treatment injuries are compensated without fault.
The three routes under the HPCA Act: Fitness to practise is the phrase practitioners use for the whole process. Under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 the Council or Board takes one of three routes: a competence review (your practice against the required standard); the health process — the Act’s fitness to practise provisions, for impairment by a mental or physical condition; or a referral of your conduct to a Professional Conduct Committee, which can lay a charge of professional misconduct before the Tribunal. Which route your letter names tells you how the matter is being treated.

Open disclosure, adverse events, near misses, treatment injury and the other terms the course uses

Duty of candour: The professional obligation, in every authority’s standard, to be open and honest with a patient and whānau when care has caused harm or nearly did: what happened, what it means, what will be done, and an apology. Not a statute in New Zealand; a standard.
Open disclosure: The conversation in which the duty is discharged: prepared, timely, in plain words, with whānau where the patient wishes, consistent across the team, and recorded. The course’s fourth section.
Adverse event: An event in care that caused harm, or could have. Includes harm that is not physical, unexpected outcomes without error, and near misses; each engages the duty.
Near miss: An event that could have harmed the patient and did not. Disclosed where the patient would want to know, and reported and learned from in every case.
Treatment injury: Physical injury caused by treatment, compensated under the accident compensation scheme without a finding of fault. The reason candour and the apology carry less legal risk in New Zealand than practitioners often fear.
Whānau: The patient’s family and support network in the sense Te Tiriti o Waitangi and every authority’s cultural competence standard give it. Present at a disclosure where the patient wishes, as partnership rather than courtesy.
Minimising: Describing harm as smaller, less certain or less connected to care than it was, or the patient’s experience as less than it was. A common way an honest disclosure fails, and a pitfall the course names.
Remediation: Change someone else can confirm: the disclosure made now and recorded, the apology given, an open disclosure protocol followed, an audit of incidents against disclosures, CPD on candour, supervision with reports, and near misses now disclosed routinely.

The provisions a candour concern engages

New Zealand has no statutory duty of candour by that name; the duty is in each authority’s standards, in the Medical Council’s case as a statement on disclosure of harm, and a failure to be open is treated as conduct. These are the provisions of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 a candour concern runs under, the standards, and the treatment-injury scheme that runs alongside.

Section 71 — referral to a Professional Conduct Committee

A failure to disclose is a conduct concern, and is referred to a Professional Conduct Committee of members of your profession and a layperson, with a legal adviser — usually alongside the concern about the harm itself, and often the graver of the two. Read it.

For this course: A failure to disclose is a conduct matter and goes to a Committee, usually alongside the concern about the harm itself; the course explains why the non-disclosure is often the graver of the two.

Section 100 — the grounds of discipline

The Tribunal may discipline for professional misconduct — malpractice or negligence, or conduct likely to bring discredit to the profession. Telling a patient a melanoma was not cancer, and telling no one of a medication error for two days, have both reached it. Read it.

For this course: Concealment of harm reaches the threshold of discipline: a doctor who told a patient a melanoma was not cancer was suspended, and the course explains how the Tribunal has treated it.

Section 101 — the penalties

Censure, conditions, suspension for up to three years, cancellation of registration, a fine of up to NZ$30,000 and costs. In candour matters the Tribunal weighs whether the disclosure was eventually made, by whom and how; the course teaches making it first. Read it.

For this course: The Tribunal’s penalties for non-disclosure weigh whether the disclosure was eventually made and by whom; the course teaches making it first.

Accident Compensation Act 2001 — treatment injury

Treatment injury — physical injury caused by treatment — is compensated under the accident compensation scheme without a finding of fault. Disclosing it is what lets the patient claim, and it is the reason an apology carries less legal risk in New Zealand than practitioners often fear. Read it.

For this course: Treatment injury under the accident compensation scheme is the route by which harm is compensated in New Zealand, and disclosing it is what lets the patient claim; the course explains the connection.

Also engaged: Section 118 — every authority’s standard requires openness when care has caused harm · Section 80 — what a Professional Conduct Committee may recommend, from counselling to a charge · Medical Council — Disclosure of harm following an adverse event · Nursing Council — the Code of Conduct’s principle of honesty · Dental Council — the Standards Framework’s principle of maintaining public trust.

What happens after a candour complaint reaches your Council or Board

The same stages under one Act, whichever authority registers you. At every one the reader asks whether the patient was told, whether they have been told now, whether the delay is owned, and whether openness is now routine — with dated evidence.

The patient, the whānau or the employer: where it starts
A patient or whānau member learns what happened from someone else, or later, or in part, and complains to the practice, the employer, the Commissioner or your authority; an incident review finds that a disclosure was not made. A complaint about a patient’s care goes to the Health and Disability Commissioner first.
The Registrar: was the patient told, and have they been told now?
The complaint arrives with the patient’s account and any incident review, and the Registrar or a delegated committee reads it beside your response. A disclosure since made, an apology given and a protocol in place can end the matter here with an educational letter; a disclosure still not made goes to conduct.
A competence review
Where a candour concern reflects a practice in which adverse events are not disclosed as a matter of course, the authority may review your practice against the standards for your scope and order a programme, conditions or supervision — answered by an open disclosure protocol and an audit.
The health route
The emotional impact of an adverse event on the practitioner is real, and where a condition contributed to the failure to disclose and was declared, the authority may deal with it under its health route, with support. Seeking help after an adverse event is a professional strength.
A Professional Conduct Committee
Members of your profession and a layperson, with a legal adviser, read your response beside the patient’s account, the record and any incident review, and meet you. They ask whether the disclosure has now been made, whether the delay is owned, and whether the practice now discloses routinely.
The Tribunal
A legally qualified chair, three members of your profession and a layperson hear the charge, usually in public. A doctor who told a patient a melanoma was not cancer was suspended; a nurse who told no one of a medication error for two days was censured and barred from practice without ethics training. Any order is reviewed against what has changed.

Facing a Council or Board investigation, complaint or allegation? This course helps you remediate — and demonstrate it.

Buy this course — NZ$200

This course is written for every registered profession under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 — the process is the same for all. Ten professions also have Ethics and Professionalism courses written to their own Council or Board’s standard. Find the courses for your profession →

Frequently asked questions

What should my written response contain?

The event and what you knew when; the conversation you had or did not have, and its timing; what the patient and whānau were told and what they were not; the apology; the record; the standard named from your authority’s own document on openness; the effect of the delay or the omission on the patient and whānau in their terms; and what has changed — the disclosure now made, the protocol, the audit, the CPD — with dates. The course’s ninth section covers each part.

What does remediation look like after a candour failure — and will my Council or Board accept this course as part of it?

The disclosure made now, properly, and recorded; the apology given; an open disclosure protocol the practice follows; an audit of incidents and near misses against disclosures, repeated; CPD on candour and communication; supervision with reports where the authority asks; and near misses now disclosed and reported routinely. No provider is accredited by any Council or Board, and no course decides a matter. What every authority, a Committee and the Tribunal weigh is dated, targeted remediation with reflection that engages your own code — and this course is written to the ground every authority’s standard shares on this subject, so the connection to yours is plain. The Tribunal has itself ordered education in ethics, boundaries and consent as part of a penalty. Check the wording of any direction with your indemnity insurer, union, professional association or lawyer before you rely on it.

Should I take advice before I respond?

Yes — before anything goes to your Council or Board, your employer, a Professional Conduct Committee or the Tribunal. Your indemnity insurer, your union or professional association, or a lawyer should read a response before it is sent, and can advise on the wording of a disclosure or an apology without withholding either. Nothing on this page is legal advice, and no course determines the outcome of a matter.

The patient found out from someone else. What should I do now?

Have the conversation yourself, now, properly — what happened, what it means, what will be done, an apology — with whānau where the patient wishes, and record it. Then own, in your response, that the patient heard it first from someone else and what that did. The course covers conducting a disclosure that is difficult or challenged, and the authorities read a practitioner who did it late very differently from one who did not do it.

I told the patient, but weeks later. How is that read?

As a delay, and delay is the first candour pitfall the course names. What the authorities read for now is whether the disclosure, when it came, was full and honest, whether the delay is owned and its reason understood, and whether the practice now discloses promptly. A late disclosure done well, and a protocol now followed, is how a delay is remediated.

Nobody was at fault. Did I still have to tell the patient?

Yes. The duty applies to what happened, not to who was to blame: an unexpected outcome without error, a complication, a near miss the patient would want to know about. The course treats candour as behaviour rather than blame, and its third section covers harm and adverse events with and without error. A disclosure made now, with that explained, is the remediation.

I was told not to apologise because it admits liability. Is that right in New Zealand?

It has little force here. An apology is an expression of regret, not an admission of legal liability, and under the accident compensation scheme most treatment injuries are compensated without fault being found. Every authority expects the apology to be made, and reads its absence as a candour failure. Take advice on wording where a claim is possible; do not withhold the apology.

What should I have documented?

That the conversation happened, when, who was present, what was explained, what the patient and whānau asked and said, the apology, and what was agreed would follow — at the time, objectively, in plain language. The course’s sixth section covers each, including how to add a record now for a conversation that was not documented then, dated as an addition.

How do whānau come into a disclosure?

In partnership. For a Māori patient a disclosure is made with whānau present where the patient wishes, with tikanga observed, and in a way the patient and whānau can take in; the patient decides who is told. Involving whānau and cultural considerations is a lesson in the open disclosure section, and cultural competence is a standard every authority sets.

How is this different from the Effective Communication course?

Candour is the conversation after something has gone wrong: adverse events, disclosure, the apology, and documentation as evidence. Effective Communication is communication in general — with patients and whānau, vulnerable and diverse patients, within teams, and in difficult conversations. A practitioner whose concern is a disclosure starts here; one whose concern is how they communicate day to day takes the other.

Which Council or Board is this course written for?

All eighteen. Every authority under the Act requires openness when something has gone wrong in its standard and treats a failure as conduct, Right 6 of the Code of Rights applies to every provider, and the accident compensation scheme and Te Tiriti o Waitangi shape disclosure for every profession. The course reads the Medical Council, Nursing Council and Dental Council standards in their own words and the rest alongside, so you cite your own.

How long does it take, and how long do I have access?

The course is 2 CPD hours, self-paced, with twelve months’ access from purchase. The certificate is issued on completion, dated, with the course title and the CPD hours, for a response, a portfolio or your recertification.

Notifications rarely raise one issue. These are the courses that pair with this one.

Effective Communication for Healthcare Professionals

Communication course for NZ health practitioners facing a notification about manner, omission, honesty, explanation or handover. 2 CPD hours, NZ$200.

2 CPD hours · NZ$200

Documentation for Healthcare Professionals

Clinical documentation and health records course for NZ health practitioners facing a notification about records, late entries or amendments. 2 CPD hours.

2 CPD hours · NZ$200

Dealing with a Complaint or Investigation Professionally

Responding to a complaint, notification, competence review or conduct committee in NZ: the first letter, the meeting, what to write. 2 CPD hours.

2 CPD hours · NZ$200

Ensuring No Repeat of Misconduct or Mistake in Future Practice

Not every mistake is misconduct. After a Council or Board notification: what separates them, the blind spots you cannot see, making change hold. 2 hrs.

2 CPD hours · NZ$200

Insight for Fitness to Practise

Asked to show insight after a notification? The staged model, the four components a Council or Tribunal assesses, and what undermines it. 2 CPD hours.

2 CPD hours · NZ$200

Remediation for Fitness to Practise

Remediation after a Council or Board notification: root cause not symptom, SMART goals, the seven parts of a written plan, evidence of change. 2 CPD hours.

2 CPD hours · NZ$200

Probity and Honesty for Healthcare Professionals

A Council or Board notification about honesty: records, qualifications, ACC claims, undeclared interests, or your account of what happened. 2 CPD hours.

2 CPD hours · NZ$200