Council or Board notification · All 18 responsible authorities

Ensuring Clinical Competence and Patient Safety for Health Practitioners facing a Council or Board investigation, complaint or allegation

The allegation concerns the care itself — your clinical competence, judgement or the safety of a patient.

Diagnosis — missed, wrong or delayed, or an assessment that fell short
Deterioration — a patient getting worse not recognised
Escalation — help not called, or a concern not raised in time
Medication — a drug chosen, dosed or monitored wrongly
Scope — practising beyond your scope, or skills not kept up to date
Delegation — a task given to someone not competent, or not supervised
Follow-up — a result not acted on, or a referral not made
Any other — concern about clinical competence or patient safety

Facing an allegation of a competence concern 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 notification, complaint or allegation, a competence review, a competence programme or a Professional Conduct Committee investigation about the care itself — a diagnosis, a deterioration, an escalation, a medication, a delegation, a result or practice beyond scope
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, 76 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

74Lessons, plus a post-course assessment

NZ$200One off. Twelve months' access

Who this course is for

Facing an allegation about the care itself

The letter says a diagnosis was missed, a deterioration not recognised, a medication wrong, a result not followed up, a procedure beyond your scope. Inadequate treatment, delay, missed diagnosis and inadequate assessment are the Commissioner’s most frequent primary complaint issues, and clinical skills and knowledge led the concerns notified to the Medical Council in 2024/25; this course is how you show the gap seen and closed.

A competence review has been ordered

Reviewers named by your authority will measure your practice against the standards for your scope by observation, records and interview. The Medical Council completed eighteen performance assessments in 2024/25 and the Dental Council opened twelve reviews; the review is educative, and it reads before anything else for whether you can see the gap yourself.

A competence programme, conditions or supervision are in place

The programme is drawn up with you — targeted CPD, supervision, audit, assessment — and reviewed against whether the standard has been reached. Seven of the Medical Council’s eighteen assessments ended in a competence programme in 2024/25. A clinical audit repeated, supervision with reports and this course’s dated certificate are the evidence it is reviewed against.

An employer has raised competence, or has had to notify

An incident review, a performance process, a dismissal or a resignation for reasons relating to competence — the Act requires the employer to notify your authority. What reaches the Registrar is the employer’s account; what answers it is yours: the limit recognised, the check now made, the escalation now routine.

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 complaint, and usually meet you. They can recommend counselling or a competence review, decide on no further action or conciliation, or lay a charge before the Tribunal.

The concerns this course speaks to

A diagnosis missed, wrong or delayed, or an assessment that fell short

A presentation closed too early, a differential not considered, a warning symptom explained away, a test not ordered; an examination not done or not recorded, observations not taken, a history cut short. Missed, incorrect or delayed diagnosis was a primary issue in 228 complaints to the Commissioner in 2023/24, inadequate examination or assessment in 168 and inadequate treatment in 358. The course covers clinical reasoning, premature closure, the assessment the standard requires and the record that shows it.

Deterioration not recognised

A patient getting worse while the observations said so, a trend not seen across a shift, a change dismissed as expected, monitoring that stopped. The course gives recognising deterioration its own lessons, and treats the record of observations as the evidence a review reads first.

Escalation: help not called, or called late

A concern not raised because of the hierarchy, a senior not called, a transfer delayed, a limit in your own competence not declared to someone who could act. Escalation is the behaviour the authorities read for first in a clinical concern; the course covers when to escalate, to whom, how to make the call heard, and how to record it.

A medication error

A drug chosen, dosed, prescribed, dispensed or monitored wrongly, an allergy not checked, an interaction missed, a verbal order not confirmed. Prescribing was the third concern type notified to the Medical Council in 2024/25; the course covers errors, near misses and the systems that produce them, and the Prescribing course goes further.

Practising beyond scope, or skills not kept current

A procedure outside your scope, within your scope but beyond your competence, a limit not declared; a guideline changed and not read, a skill not practised for years, a return to practice without a refresher. Practising outside scope is a ground for discipline in its own right, the Dental Council has questioned advanced procedures done with limited CPD, and the Medical Council’s assessments ended in recertification programmes in two cases in 2024/25. The course gives scope and limits a full section, and its third section is maintaining competence over time.

Delegation and supervision

A task delegated to someone not competent to take it, a delegation without the instruction or the check the standard requires, a junior or a student left unsupervised, a role not made clear. Every authority’s standard places the responsibility for a delegated task with the practitioner who delegates it; the course covers delegation, supervision and role clarity as part of scope.

Follow-up, results and referral

A result not acted on, a referral not made or not chased, safety-netting advice not given or not recorded, a patient lost between services. Delay in treatment was a primary issue in 237 complaints to the Commissioner in 2023/24. The course treats safety-netting and follow-up as evidence of judgement under uncertainty.

Systems, workload and any other concern

A short-staffed shift, an interruption, fatigue, a system that invited the error — real, and read for what you did within them. The course names human factors as the conditions of an error rather than its excuse, and treats individual accountability within system pressures as its own question. Any competence allegation is measured against your own authority’s standards for your scope.

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

Section 01

Introduction to Clinical Competence and Patient Safety

Eight lessons

Section 02

Scope of Practice, Limits, and Professional Boundaries

Eight lessons

Section 03

Maintaining Clinical Competence Over Time

Eight lessons

Section 04

Clinical Decision-Making and Risk Management

Eight lessons

Section 05

Systems, Workload, and Human Factors

Eight lessons

Section 06

Errors, Near Misses, and Patient Safety Incidents

Nine lessons

Section 07

Communication, Handover, and Escalation

Eight lessons

Section 08

Complaints, Investigations, and Regulatory Expectations

Eight lessons

Section 09

Reflection, Insight, and Remediation

Nine lessons

Section 10

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Key takeaways and the post-course assessment

Show every lesson title

Section 01 · Introduction to Clinical Competence and Patient Safety: What Is Clinical Competence in Healthcare?; Understanding Patient Safety; The Link Between Clinical Competence and Patient Safety; Clinical Competence as a Professional Responsibility; Common Misconceptions About Error and Competence; Early Warning Signs of Risk to Competence or Safety; Shared Responsibility for Safe Practice; Reflective Practice as a Safety Tool.
Section 02 · Scope of Practice, Limits, and Professional Boundaries: Understanding Scope of Practice; Practising Within Competence; Recognising Personal and Professional Limits; Working Across Roles and Settings; Delegation, Supervision, and Shared Care; Professional Boundaries and Role Clarity; Scope of Practice and Regulatory Expectations; Preventing Risk Through Early Escalation.
Section 03 · Maintaining Clinical Competence Over Time: Clinical Competence as a Lifelong Professional Obligation; Continuing Professional Development (CPD) as a Safety Tool; Keeping Clinical Knowledge Current; Maintaining and Updating Practical Skills; Self-Monitoring, Insight, and Professional Self-Awareness; The Role of Feedback, Supervision, and Peer Support; Adapting to Changes in Role, Setting, or Health; Competence, Risk, and Regulatory Expectations.
Section 04 · Clinical Decision-Making and Risk Management: Clinical Decision-Making in Modern Healthcare; Judgement Under Uncertainty and Complexity; Identifying High-Risk Situations and Red Flags; Using Guidelines, Protocols, and Pathways Safely; Risk Assessment and Safety-Netting; Cognitive Bias and Human Factors in Decision-Making; Escalation, Referral, and Shared Decision-Making; Risk Management and Regulatory Expectations.
Section 05 · Systems, Workload, and Human Factors: Understanding Systems in Healthcare; How Systems Influence Clinical Performance; Workload, Fatigue, and Time Pressure; Human Factors and Error in Healthcare; Creating Safer Systems and Work Practices; The Role of Culture in Patient Safety; Personal Responsibility Within Systems; Systems, Human Factors, and Regulatory Expectations.
Section 06 · Errors, Near Misses, and Patient Safety Incidents: Understanding Errors in Healthcare; What Are Near Misses and Why They Matter; Patient Safety Incidents and Adverse Events; Moving From Blame to Learning; Reporting Errors and Safety Concerns; Duty of Candour and Openness With Patients; Supporting Healthcare Professionals After Incidents; Learning From Incidents and Implementing Change; Errors, Insight, and Regulatory Expectations.
Section 07 · Communication, Handover, and Escalation: Communication as a Core Patient Safety Tool; Verbal Communication in Clinical Practice; Written Communication and Clinical Documentation; Safe Handover and Transfer of Care; Escalation of Concerns and Clinical Deterioration; Speaking Up for Patient Safety; Communication Across Teams and Settings; Communication, Escalation, and Regulatory Expectations.
Section 08 · Complaints, Investigations, and Regulatory Expectations: How Clinical Competence and Patient Safety Concerns Lead to Complaints; Investigations and the Assessment of Clinical Practice; Individual Accountability Within System Pressures; Professional Behaviour During Complaints and Investigations; Insight, Reflection, and Regulatory Decision-Making; Remediation Expectations Following Safety Concerns; Patterns of Concern and Escalation; Regulatory Expectations in New Zealand.
Section 09 · Reflection, Insight, and Remediation: Reflection as a Core Patient Safety Skill; Understanding Insight and Its Professional Importance; Reflecting on Clinical Competence and Decision-Making; Reflecting on Systems and Human Factors; Writing Effective Reflective Accounts; From Reflection to Remediation; Demonstrating Improvement and Behaviour Change; Rebuilding Trust Through Reflection and Remediation; Reflection, Remediation, and Fitness to Practise.
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 competence reviewer, a Professional Conduct Committee and the Tribunal read a competence response for one thing before anything else: can the practitioner see the gap? The course teaches the four parts that show it.

A review asks, before anything else, whether the practitioner can recognise the gap themselves.

The decision as it was madeIn sequence and in the first person: what you knew, what you considered, what you did and did not do, and why — with the record beside it.The course teaches clinical reasoning and how a review reads the record of a decision.
The standard, and the gapThe standard for your scope named from your authority’s own document, and the gap between it and what happened, stated plainly.The course sets every authority’s competence standards side by side, so you can cite yours.
The conditions, and the effect on the patientThe workload, fatigue, interruption or system named as conditions of the error, not its reason — and the effect on the patient in the patient’s terms.The course gives systems and human factors, and the patient’s experience, lessons of their own.
What has changed, with evidenceA clinical audit repeated, CPD targeted to the area with a reflection, supervision with reports, a checklist or safety-netting record now in use, escalation now routine.This course is the dated item you attach — and it names the other tools.

Human factors are the conditions of an error, not its excuse — and a response that names them as conditions is read as insight.

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

Competence as the authorities assess it — scope, currency, judgement, systems, error, communication — and the response a competence concern needs.

It covers scope, limits and keeping competence over time

Scope of practice and its limits, delegation and role clarity, declaring a limit; knowledge and skills kept current through recertification, CPD targeted to your scope, self-monitoring, feedback and supervision, and adapting to a change of role, setting or health. The sections a review of scope or currency is answered from.

It teaches decision-making, systems and human factors

Clinical decision-making in modern practice; judgement under uncertainty and complexity; high-risk situations and red flags; using guidelines, protocols and pathways safely; risk assessment and safety-netting; cognitive bias and human factors; escalation, referral and shared decision-making. Then systems: how they influence performance; workload, fatigue and time pressure; human factors and error; safer systems and work practices; culture; and personal responsibility within a system.

It works through errors, near misses and communication

Understanding error; near misses and why they matter; patient safety incidents and adverse events; moving from blame to learning; reporting errors and safety concerns; openness with patients when something has gone wrong; supporting practitioners after incidents; learning and implementing change. Then communication as a patient safety tool: verbal, written and documentation, safe handover and transfer of care, escalation of concerns and deterioration, speaking up, and communication across teams and settings.

It brings it to the complaint, the review and the response

How a competence concern becomes a complaint; how an employer, the Commissioner and your authority assess clinical practice; what a competence review looks at and what its orders mean; insight; and the reflection on competence and on systems that a review reads for. Counts: a clinical audit of the area concerned, repeated after an interval; CPD targeted to that area with a reflection on what changed; supervision or peer review with written reports; a protocol, checklist or safety-netting record now in use; this course’s dated certificate; a competence programme proposed by you rather than received. Counts for little: a certificate on another subject, a general statement that you have learned from the event, hours logged without a change anyone can see. For the stages from the first letter to the Tribunal, see the Council and Board investigation 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

Ensuring Clinical Competence and Patient Safety 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 treats competence as the Act and the authorities do: scope of practice and its limits; knowledge and skills kept current; clinical decision-making and risk management; systems, workload and human factors; errors, near misses and patient safety incidents; communication, handover and escalation; how competence concerns become complaints and how an investigation assesses clinical practice; and the reflection, insight and remediation a competence review reads for. 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 competence

Competence is the Act’s word, and the Act gives it a route of its own. Under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 every authority defines scopes of practice for its profession and sets standards of clinical competence for each; a practitioner may practise only within a scope they hold; and where an authority has reason to believe a practitioner’s practice may be below the required standard it may review their competence, and order a competence programme, conditions, an assessment or supervision where the standard is not met. Every authority describes that route as educative and supportive, separate from conduct. The Medical Council completed eighteen performance assessments in 2024/25, seven ending in a competence programme; the Dental Council received 131 competence notifications and opened twelve reviews.

Two things are New Zealand-specific. The first is the employer: the Act requires an employer to notify when a practitioner is dismissed or resigns for reasons relating to competence, clinical concerns reach the authorities through an employer’s incident process as well as from patients, the Commissioner, ACC and the Coroner, and the course treats individual accountability within system pressures as its own question. The second is Te Tiriti o Waitangi: cultural competence is a standard every authority must set beside clinical competence, and a decision made without whānau, or an escalation delayed for a Māori patient, is a competence concern to each of them.

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.
Escalation: Raising a deteriorating patient, a concern or a limit in your own competence to someone who can act, in time. The behaviour the authorities read for first in a clinical concern.
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.

Scope of practice, competence review, competence programme, safety-netting and the other terms the course uses

Clinical competence: The knowledge, skills, judgement and attitudes required to practise safely within a scope of practice, kept current over time. Assessed by your authority against the standards it sets for that scope.
Scope of practice: The health services a practitioner is registered to provide, as defined by their authority under the Act. Practising outside it is a ground for discipline in its own right, and limits within it are the practitioner’s to recognise.
Competence review: The process under section 36 by which an authority assesses whether a practitioner’s practice meets the required standard — a panel, a committee or independent reviewers, each authority naming its own, observing practice, reading records and discussing decisions.
Competence programme: The programme an authority may order under section 38 where the standard is not met, drawn up with the practitioner, made of targeted education, supervision, audit and assessment, and reviewed against whether the standard has been reached.
Patient safety: The prevention of avoidable harm to patients through competent practice, safe systems, communication and learning from error. The purpose the Act names, and the reason competence has a route of its own.
Near miss: An event that could have harmed a patient and did not, through chance or intervention. Reported and learned from, it is the simplest evidence of a safe practitioner; ignored, it is the pattern the authorities later find.
Human factors: The ways workload, fatigue, interruption, design, culture and cognition shape performance. Named in a reflection as the conditions of an error rather than offered as its excuse.
Safety-netting: The advice, follow-up and review arrangements that catch what an assessment might have missed. Documented, it is evidence of judgement under uncertainty; absent, it is a gap a review looks for.
Remediation: Change that someone else can confirm: CPD targeted to the clinical area, a clinical audit repeated, supervision with reports, feedback gathered on purpose. The evidence a competence programme is reviewed against.

The provisions a competence concern engages

Competence is the Act’s own word: the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 gives every authority a competence route that is separate from conduct and from health, and designed to be educative. These are its provisions, and the standards a competence review measures practice against.

Section 34 — notifying a risk of harm

A practitioner who believes another practitioner may pose a risk of harm to the public by practising below the required standard must notify the Registrar, and so must an employer who dismisses a practitioner, or accepts a resignation, for reasons relating to competence. Employers, colleagues, the Commissioner, ACC and the Coroner are the sources the authorities name. Read it.

For this course: Competence concerns reach the authorities under this section from employers and colleagues; the course explains what those notifications contain.

Section 36 — review of competence

Where an authority has reason to believe a practitioner may not be practising to the required standard of competence, it may review that competence against the standards it sets for the scope of practice — by observation, records and interview, with reviewers each authority names for itself. The section this course is built around. Read it.

For this course: This is the section the course is built around: what a review assesses, how it is conducted for each authority, and what a practitioner’s own account has to do.

Section 38 — orders after a review

Where competence is not at the required standard the authority may order a competence programme, conditions on the scope of practice, an examination or assessment, or supervision — educative measures, not discipline, each reviewed against what has changed. The course teaches how to propose a programme rather than receive one. Read it.

For this course: The orders after a review are the outcomes the course sets out, and the course teaches how to propose a programme rather than receive one.

Section 39 — interim suspension pending a review

Where there is a risk of serious harm, the authority may suspend the practising certificate or impose interim conditions while a competence review or assessment is carried out — a protective step, not a finding. The Dental Council made twelve interim orders in 2024/25 against 131 competence notifications; evidence of the gap closed is what lifts them. Read it.

For this course: Interim suspension pending a review is used where the risk is serious; the course explains when, and what evidence lifts it.

Also engaged: Section 45 — notifying a health concern: where a health condition lies beneath the concern, the health route · Section 80 — a Professional Conduct Committee may recommend a competence review in place of a charge · Section 118 — the standards of clinical competence every authority must set, scope by scope · Medical Council — recertification, the Performance Assessment Committee and Good medical practice · Nursing Council — continuing competence requirements and competence programmes.

The competence route, stage by stage

The same stages under one Act, whichever authority registers you — and at every one the reader asks the same question: can this practitioner see the gap, and has it been closed? It answers from the evidence.

The patient, the employer or the Commissioner: where it starts
A patient complains about the care, an employer’s incident review finds a gap, the Coroner or ACC reports a treatment injury, or a colleague notifies under section 34. A complaint about a patient’s care goes to the Health and Disability Commissioner first; the Commissioner refers competence concerns to your authority, and your authority can act on public safety meanwhile.
The Registrar: is a patient at risk now, and which route?
The Registrar or a delegated committee reads the notification beside your response and asks whether a patient is at risk now. A limit recognised, a check now in place and supervision already arranged answer it; a response that disputes every finding does not. Then: no further action, an educational letter, a preliminary competence inquiry, a competence review, the health route or a Professional Conduct Committee.
A competence review
Reviewers named by your authority — a panel, a committee or independent assessors — measure your practice against the standards for your scope by observation, records and interview. The Medical Council completed eighteen performance assessments in 2024/25; the Dental Council opened twelve reviews. The review is educative, and it reads for whether you can see the gap yourself.
Orders after a review — and interim suspension where the risk is serious
Where the standard is not met: a competence programme, conditions on your scope, an examination or assessment, or supervision — drawn up with you and reviewed against what has changed. Where there is a risk of serious harm the authority may suspend your practising certificate or impose interim conditions while the review runs; evidence of the gap closed is what lifts them.
The health route, or a Professional Conduct Committee
Where a health condition lies beneath the concern the Act routes it to the health process, with support. Where the record or the account raises honesty, or the practitioner does not engage with the review, the concern becomes conduct: a Committee of your profession and a layperson investigates, and may recommend a competence review in place of a charge.
The Tribunal
A legally qualified chair, three members of your profession and a layperson hear a charge of professional misconduct — malpractice or negligence in the scope of practice — usually in public. Penalties run from censure and conditions to suspension and cancellation, graded by seriousness and by what has been understood since; 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 does a reflection on a clinical error contain?

The decision as it was made, in sequence and in the first person; the standard for your scope named; the human factors and systems named as conditions; the effect on the patient in the patient’s terms; what is understood now; and the check, protocol or escalation that now exists, with evidence. The course teaches reflecting on competence and decision-making and on systems and human factors as two separate reflections that belong in one account.

What will the competence reviewers look at?

Your practice against the standards for your scope: records, decisions, the safety-netting documented, escalation, communication, and how you respond to what they find. The course’s eighth section covers how an investigation assesses clinical practice, and the ninth how to reflect on competence and decision-making so that the reviewers read a practitioner who can see the gap.

How do I show that my competence is current — and will my Council or Board accept this course as part of a competence programme?

Through your authority’s recertification programme and beyond it: CPD targeted to your scope, skills maintained and updated, self-monitoring, feedback and supervision, a clinical audit repeated, and a record of adapting to changes in role, setting or health. The course’s third section is maintaining competence over time, and the portfolio a review reads is built from it. 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 Medical Council’s performance assessments ended in competence programmes in seven of eighteen cases in 2024/25, and a competence programme is made of exactly this kind of dated work. 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, a competence reviewer, 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. Nothing on this page is legal advice, and no course determines the outcome of a matter.

Is a competence review a disciplinary process?

No. Every authority describes the competence route under the Act as educative and supportive, separate from conduct: a review against the standards for your scope, and a programme, conditions or supervision to bring practice to the standard where it is not met. Of the Medical Council’s eighteen performance assessments in 2024/25, ten ended in no further action or an educational letter and seven in a competence programme. It becomes a conduct matter where the practitioner does not engage with it, or where the record or the account raises honesty. The course covers what reviewers look at and how the programme is built from what you recognise.

The error happened on a short-staffed shift. Will the authority take that into account?

It will read for it, and it will read for what you did within it. Workload, fatigue and time pressure have their own lesson in the course because they are real and the authorities know it; what they read for is the individual’s accountability within the system — the check still made, the concern escalated, the limit declared — and the human factors named in the reflection as conditions of the error rather than offered as its reason.

I was working outside my usual scope. Is that competence or conduct?

Both can be engaged. Practising outside a scope you hold is a ground for discipline under the Act; practising within your scope but beyond your competence is a competence concern; and either is read for whether you recognised the limit and said so. The course gives scope, limits, delegation and role clarity a full section.

A near miss was reported about me. Does that reach my Council or Board?

Not on its own, as a rule: the authorities regard near misses reported and learned from as evidence of a safe practitioner. What reaches them is a pattern, a harm, or an employer’s notification. The course covers near misses, reporting and the move from blame to learning, and why a near miss addressed is the simplest remediation there is.

How is this different from the Prescribing course, or the Documentation course?

Those are written for one part of practice each. This course is competence as a whole: scope, currency, judgement, systems, error, communication and the competence route under the Act. A practitioner whose concern is a prescribing error or a record usually takes this course and the specific one together.

Which Council or Board is this course written for?

All eighteen. The competence route — review, programme, conditions, supervision — is the same under the Act for every profession, each authority naming its own reviewers and setting its own standards for its scopes. The course reads the Medical Council, Nursing Council, Pharmacy Council and Dental Council competence standards in their own words and the allied professions’ alongside.

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, a competence programme or your recertification.

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

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

Prescribing Guidance and Standards for Healthcare Professionals

A Council or Board notification about prescribing: for yourself or family, opioids, a dose or interaction, antibiotics, a repeat or telehealth. 2 CPD hours.

2 CPD hours · NZ$200

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

Duty of Candour for Healthcare Professionals

Open disclosure course for NZ health practitioners facing a notification about non-disclosure, delay, a minimised account or a missing apology. 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

Rebuilding Trust of Patients, Colleagues, the Public and the Regulator

After a notification, conditions or a Tribunal finding in NZ, what is assessed is what you did next: insight, remediation, evidence of change. 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