Council or Board notification · All 18 responsible authorities
Ensuring No Repeat of Misconduct or Mistake in Future Practice for Health Practitioners facing a Council or Board investigation, complaint or allegation
Asked to make sure and demonstrate it does not happen again? The course that sets out how to show a repeat is now unlikely.
- Cause — the reason it happened not yet found or named
- Personal — fatigue, stress, overconfidence or working alone
- Competence — a gap in knowledge or skill not yet closed
- Dishonesty — a record, a claim or an account that was not true
- Boundaries — a boundaries breach with a patient or a colleague
- Health — a condition affecting practice, not yet managed
- Systems — workload, staffing or a process that invited the error
- Records — a note, a handover or a result that keeps going missing
Asked to make sure it does not happen again — by your Council or Board, a competence reviewer, 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.
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 asked to prevent a recurrence — in a response to a Council or Board notification, at a competence review, under a programme or conditions, before a Professional Conduct Committee or at the Tribunal
- 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, 50 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.
Who this course is for
Asked to make sure and demonstrate it does not happen again
The letter, the reviewer or the Committee asks you to show that what happened will not happen again. “It will not happen again” is a prediction with nothing behind it, and every authority reads it as such; what persuades is the cause of the event named by you, the safeguard now on it described, the evidence pointed to and the interval shown. The course is about that answer.
You have made a mistake and want it to be the only one
A first mistake, a first complaint, a first notification. The authorities read even a first event for whether it could recur, and a practitioner who has found the cause and put a safeguard on it before anyone asked is read very differently from one who has not. The course shows how to do that early, whatever stage the matter has reached.
A competence programme, conditions or supervision are in place
Each is designed to prevent a repeat and each carries a review date. They are lifted on evidence that the control has held without them; the course shows how to build that evidence — audits repeated after three and six months, supervision reports at set intervals — so that the review finds it.
A Professional Conduct Committee or the Tribunal is ahead
A Committee weighing counselling against a charge, and the Tribunal choosing between conditions and suspension, each ask whether it is likely to happen again. The course covers presenting the assurance in a portfolio and at a hearing, organised so the control for each risk factor can be found.
You are returning to practice
After suspension, conditions or a break. The authorities read a practitioner whose habits changed differently from one whose file did, and the course’s last section is the daily habits, the mentor and the resilience that make a repeat unlikely long after the file is closed.
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.
The concerns this course speaks to
The cause not yet found
A mistake explained by what happened rather than why it happened. An assurance starts with the circumstance that produced the event, named by you — personal, competence, ethical, organisational or systems — because a safeguard aimed at the wrong cause will not hold. Where there has been more than one event, the cause is what they share. The course’s third section is built so that a practitioner can find their own.
Personal factors
Fatigue, stress, overconfidence, haste, a habit of working alone, a personal crisis. Named in a reflection as the conditions of the event and controlled — a limit on hours, a second check, a mentor, support sought — they show understanding; offered as its reason, they read as explanation. The course’s third section opens here.
Competence gaps
Knowledge or a skill not kept current, practice beyond competence, a new role without a refresher. The control is targeted CPD with a reflection on what changed, supervision with reports, and an audit of the area repeated; the Medical Council’s performance assessments ended in competence or recertification programmes in nine of eighteen cases in 2024/25.
Probity and an allegation of dishonesty
A record, a claim, a declaration or an account that was not true. The control is not a promise of honesty: it is the account corrected, the record audited, a claiming or documentation protocol followed, and supervision or mentorship with reports, so that honesty can be seen as well as stated.
Professional and ethical boundaries
A boundaries breach with a patient or a colleague, a drift not seen until it was a notification. The control is the relationship ended or the role separated and recorded, a supervisor with written reports, a chaperone protocol, a reflective log of the moments a boundary was tested, and CPD on boundaries.
Health, fitness and the risk to patients
A condition that affected practice and was not managed. The control is a health plan with a treating practitioner’s reports, a limit on practice while it is needed, and a declaration made first; the authority’s health route exists to support it.
Organisational and systems pressures
Workload, staffing, a process that invited the error. The authorities know the pressures are real and read for the individual’s control within the system: the concern now escalated, the check now made, the limit now set, the shift now declined. The course treats systems as a risk factor to be controlled rather than a reason to be offered.
Communication, documentation and handover
A note written late, a handover not given, a result not communicated — habits, and so auditable. The control is a record-keeping or handover protocol, a template now used, and an audit repeated with the figures shown.
Facing a Council or Board investigation, complaint or allegation? This course helps you remediate — and demonstrate it.
Buy this course — NZ$200What the course covers
Ten sections and 50 lessons, with a reflective quiz closing each of the first nine and a post-course assessment at the end.
Introduction — Why Preventing Recurrence Matters in New Zealand Healthcare
Four lessons
Regulator Perspectives on Non-Repetition — MCNZ, NCNZ, Pharmacy Council, Dental Council, HPCA Authorities
Six lessons
Risk Factors for Misconduct and Mistakes
Five lessons
Reflection and Insight as Evidence of Learning
Six lessons
Remediation Strategies — CPD, Audits, Supervision, Feedback
Six lessons
Weak vs Strong Assurances of Non-Repetition
Four lessons
Case Studies — Demonstrating Change Across Professions
Six lessons
Presenting Evidence in Portfolios and Hearings
Six lessons
Embedding Non-Repetition into Daily Practice and Identity
Five lessons
Conclusion and Key Takeaways
Key takeaways and the post-course assessment
Show every lesson title
- Section 01 · Introduction — Why Preventing Recurrence Matters in New Zealand Healthcare
- Why Preventing Recurrence Matters for Patients; Why Preventing Recurrence Matters for Regulators; Consequences of Failing to Demonstrate Non-Repetition; Professional Identity and Lifelong Commitment.
- Section 02 · Regulator Perspectives on Non-Repetition — MCNZ, NCNZ, Pharmacy Council, Dental Council, HPCA Authorities
- Medical Council of New Zealand (MCNZ); Nursing Council of New Zealand (NCNZ); Pharmacy Council of New Zealand; Dental Council of New Zealand; HPCA Authorities (Allied Health Professions); Shared Regulator Themes.
- Section 03 · Risk Factors for Misconduct and Mistakes
- Personal Factors; Professional Competence Gaps; Ethical and Behavioural Risks; Organisational and Systems Pressures; External and Contextual Factors.
- Section 04 · Reflection and Insight as Evidence of Learning
- What Reflection Means; What Insight Means; Why Reflection and Insight Matter to Regulators; Structured Models to Support Reflection; How Reflection and Insight Prevent Recurrence; Practical Tips for Professionals.
- Section 05 · Remediation Strategies — CPD, Audits, Supervision, Feedback
- Targeted Continuing Professional Development (CPD); Clinical or Administrative Audits; Supervision and Mentorship; Patient and Colleague Feedback; Integrating Evidence into a Remediation Portfolio; Weak vs Strong Remediation.
- Section 06 · Weak vs Strong Assurances of Non-Repetition
- Characteristics of Weak Assurances; Characteristics of Strong Assurances; Case Comparisons; Why Strong Assurances Persuade Regulators.
- Section 07 · Case Studies — Demonstrating Change Across Professions
- Medicine — Prescribing Safety; Nursing — Documentation Integrity; Pharmacy — Probity and Honesty; Dentistry — Consent and Transparency; Allied Health — Boundary Management; Shared Lessons Across Professions.
- Section 08 · Presenting Evidence in Portfolios and Hearings
- Reflective Statements; Organising Portfolios; Behaviour at Hearings; Using Evidence Effectively; Why Presentation Matters; Practical Tips for Hearings.
- Section 09 · Embedding Non-Repetition into Daily Practice and Identity
- Non-Repetition as Part of Professional Identity; Daily Habits that Reinforce Non-Repetition; Mentorship and Role Modelling; Building Resilience to Uphold Standards; Fitness Across a Career.
- Section 10 · Conclusion and Key Takeaways
- Conclusion; Key Takeaways.
How to respond to a Council or Board notification, complaint or allegation
Every reader on every route asks the same question about the future. The course teaches the four parts of an assurance of non-repetition that persuades.
“It will not happen again” is a prediction with nothing behind it.
- The risk factor, named by youThe circumstance that produced the event — personal, competence, ethical, organisational or systems — found by you, not by the reader.The course names five families of risk factor so that you can find yours.
- The control that now sits on itA check, a protocol, a supervisor, a health plan, a limit on scope, a habit — specific to the risk factor, and visible to someone else.The course’s remediation section covers each control.
- The evidenceAn audit repeated with the figures shown, supervision reports, feedback gathered on purpose, a treating practitioner’s report — indexed so that a reviewer finds the evidence for each control.The course covers the portfolio a reviewer can read quickly.
- The intervalHow long the control has held — three months, six months, a year — and what was done before anyone required it.This course is the dated item you attach — and it names the other evidence.
A control that exists because a condition requires it lasts as long as the condition; a habit lasts.
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$200How this course helps with a Council or Board investigation
Five families of risk factor, the reflection and remediation that address them, and the assurance of non-repetition that persuades.
It names the risk factors so that you can name yours
Personal factors; professional competence gaps; ethical and behavioural risks; organisational and systems pressures; external and contextual factors. An assurance that persuades starts by naming which of these produced the event, and the course’s third section is built so that a practitioner can find their own.
It joins reflection and insight to remediation
Reflection and insight as the faculty that identifies the risk factor — without it the control is aimed at the wrong thing — and the remediation strategies that address it: targeted CPD, clinical or administrative audit, supervision and mentorship, patient and colleague feedback, integrated into a portfolio.
It shows the assurance that persuades, and five professions’ examples
The characteristics of a strong assurance of non-repetition — the risk factor named, the control described, the evidence pointed to, the interval shown — with case comparisons, and why that assurance persuades where a promise does not. Then case studies from medicine (prescribing safety), nursing (documentation integrity), pharmacy (probity), dentistry (consent and transparency) and allied health (boundaries), each showing change demonstrated.
It covers presentation and habit
Reflective statements; organising a portfolio so a reviewer can find the control for each risk factor; behaviour at a hearing; and non-repetition as identity — the daily habits, the mentor and the resilience that make a repeat unlikely after the file is closed. Counts: the risk factor named by you; a control someone else can see — a check built into the system, a protocol the practice follows, a supervisor with written reports, a health plan, a limit on scope; an audit repeated with the figures shown; this course’s dated certificate among the CPD targeted to the risk factor; the interval over which the control has held. Counts for little: “it will not happen again”, “I will be more careful”, a control aimed at the wrong risk factor, a programme finished and the day-to-day unchanged. 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 .
In short
Ensuring No Repeat of Misconduct or Mistake in Future Practice 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 explains why every authority decides on the likelihood of recurrence, reads the Medical Council, the Nursing Council, the Pharmacy Council, the Dental Council and the allied HPCA authorities side by side, names five families of risk factor for misconduct and mistakes, joins reflection and insight to the identification of your own, and remediation — CPD, audit, supervision, feedback — to its control. It sets out the assurance of non-repetition that persuades, with case comparisons and five professions’ case studies, and covers portfolios, hearings and the daily habits that make a repeat unlikely. 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 non-repetition
The Act protects the public from the next event, not the last one. A competence programme, conditions, supervision and a Tribunal order are each designed to prevent a repeat, and each is reviewed afterwards against whether it has. The Tribunal’s penalties are graded by the seriousness of what happened and by the likelihood of it happening again, and the evidence that moves that likelihood is the same at every stage: a risk factor named by the practitioner, a control described, and evidence that the control has held over an interval. The course is organised around that evidence and five families of risk factor — personal, competence, ethical and behavioural, organisational and systems, external — and the safeguard that answers each.
Two things are New Zealand-specific. The first is that the same file is read by several readers in turn under one Act, and every one of them asks the same question about the future — whether it was a first event or not — so the answer is worth giving at the first letter. The second is the workplace: employers are required to notify in defined circumstances and see the practice daily, and the evidence of non-repetition the authorities read often comes from them — a supervisor’s report, an audit the practice ran, colleague feedback.
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.
- Assurance of non-repetition
- The part of a response that addresses the future. Persuasive when it names the risk factor, describes the control, points to the evidence and shows the interval over which the control has held.
- 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.
Risk factor, control, pattern, competence programme, conditions, portfolio and the other terms the course uses
- Non-repetition
- The likelihood, as the authority assesses it, that the event will not recur. The question every stage under the Act is answering about the future, and the ground on which programmes, conditions and penalties are chosen and reviewed.
- Risk factor
- The circumstance that produced the event: personal, a competence gap, ethical or behavioural, organisational or systems, external. The thing an assurance has to name before it can be believed.
- Control
- The specific change that now sits on the risk factor: a check, a protocol, a supervisor, a health plan, a limit on scope, a habit. Described in the assurance and evidenced in the portfolio.
- Pattern
- More than one event of a similar kind on a file, read together by the authority whatever the individual explanations. A predictor of recurrence in the authorities’ reading, and the thing a response has to reach first when it exists.
- Competence programme
- The programme an authority may order under the Act where practice is below the required standard, drawn up with the practitioner and reviewed against what has changed. Built to prevent a repeat of what the review found.
- Conditions
- Requirements included in a scope of practice by an authority or the Tribunal, each designed to prevent a repeat and each with a review date. Removed on evidence that the control has held without them.
- Portfolio
- The organised file that holds the reflective statement, the risk factors named, the controls described and the evidence for each, so that a reviewer can find the control for every risk factor in the order the reflection names them.
- Insight
- Demonstrated understanding of what happened, why, what it did and what has changed. In this course, the faculty that identifies the risk factor — without it the control is aimed at the wrong thing.
The provisions a recurrence engages
The Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 asks about the future as well as the event, whether it was a first event or not. These are the provisions under which a recurrence is assessed, and the standards that ask a practitioner to make sure there is not one.
Section 80 — what a Professional Conduct Committee may recommend
After investigating, the Committee may recommend that the authority counsel you or review your competence, health or scope of practice; refer the matter to the Police; decide on no further action or conciliation; or lay a charge before the Tribunal. A Committee weighing counselling against a charge asks one question above the others: is this likely to happen again? Read it.
For this course: A Committee’s recommendation is a prediction about recurrence, and the course teaches the evidence — system change, audit, supervision — on which a favourable prediction can be made.
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. Conduct that discredits the profession includes a pattern, and the Tribunal treats a repeated failing more severely than a single one, because the second shows the first was not understood. Read it.
For this course: A repeat of conduct already the subject of a concern is treated far more seriously than a first event, and can turn a mistake into misconduct.
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, graded partly by the risk of recurrence. A dated record of what has changed since the first event is what moves a matter down that scale. Read it.
For this course: The Tribunal’s penalty for a second matter is measured against what was done after the first; the course is about making that record a good one.
Section 118 — the authority sets your standards
Every responsible authority must set standards of clinical competence, cultural competence and ethical conduct for its profession, and every code asks the practitioner to maintain competence and reflect on practice continually — the standing obligation that makes a repeat avoidable. Read it.
For this course: Preventing recurrence means understanding which part of the authority’s standard was engaged, because that is where the safeguard has to sit.
Also engaged: Section 34 — a colleague or employer who sees the same error twice is required to notify · Section 36 — review of competence: is the gap the first event showed still there? · Section 38 — orders after a review: each designed to prevent a repeat, each with a review date · Medical Council — recertification: audit, peer review and a professional development plan · Nursing Council — continuing competence requirements: evidence, kept and dated.
What each stage asks about the future
The same readers in turn under one Act, whichever authority registers you — and every one of them is predicting the next event. The answer they read for is the same at every stage.
The first letter: will it happen again?
The Registrar or a delegated committee reads your response beside the notification and decides the route, and asks about the future as well as the event; the answer that persuades names the risk factor that produced the event, describes the control now on it, and points to the evidence — and a response that does can end the matter with no further action or an educational letter.
A competence review
Reviewers named by your authority look for whether the conditions that produced the event are still present. A review that finds the same gap it found before is the Act’s clearest evidence that the first remediation did not hold; one that finds a control in place and an audit repeated reads the opposite way.
The health route
Where a condition lay beneath the event, the control is a health plan with a treating practitioner’s reports, and the authority’s health route exists to support it. A declaration made first, with a plan behind it, is the strongest assurance a health matter can give.
A Professional Conduct Committee
Members of your profession and a layperson, with a legal adviser, weigh counselling against a charge with one question above the others: is this likely to happen again? The answer they read for is the risk factor named, the control described, the evidence pointed to and the interval shown.
The Tribunal
A legally qualified chair, three members of your profession and a layperson hear the charge, usually in public. Its penalties are graded partly by the risk of recurrence, a repeated failing is treated more severely than a single one, and a dated record of what changed after the first event is what moves a matter down the scale.
Programmes, conditions and review
A competence programme, conditions and supervision are each designed to prevent a repeat, and each carries a review date. They are lifted on evidence that the control has held without them — audits repeated after three and six months, supervision reports at set intervals, a period without recurrence.
Facing a Council or Board investigation, complaint or allegation? This course helps you remediate — and demonstrate it.
Buy this course — NZ$200This 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
I have said it will not happen again. Why is that not enough?
Because it is a prediction with nothing behind it, and every authority reads it as such. What persuades the authorities and the Tribunal instead is the risk factor that produced the event named by the practitioner, the control that now sits on it described, the evidence that the control has held pointed to, and the interval shown. The course is about that sentence.
What control counts as evidence rather than intention — and will my Council or Board accept this course as part of it?
One that someone else can see: a prescribing check built into the software, a protocol the practice follows, a supervisor with a set interval and written reports, a health plan with a treating practitioner’s reports, a limit on scope, an audit repeated with the figures shown. The course’s remediation section covers each and how it is evidenced in a portfolio. 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. 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, a Professional Conduct Committee, the Tribunal or your employer. Your indemnity insurer, your union or professional association, or a lawyer will read a response before it is sent. Nothing on this page is legal advice, and no course determines the outcome of a matter.
This is my second notification. How differently will it be read?
Very. A second event of a similar kind is read by every stage as a failed prediction, the authorities weigh it far more heavily than a first, and the response has to reach the pattern before anything else — what the two events share, why the first control did not hold, and what is different about the second. The course treats the pattern as the risk factor above all others.
What is a risk factor, and how do I find mine?
The circumstance that produced the event. The course names five families — personal (fatigue, stress, overconfidence, working alone), competence gaps, ethical and behavioural risks, organisational and systems pressures, and external factors — and its third section is built so that a practitioner can recognise which produced theirs. Many events have more than one, and an assurance that names only the easy one is read as partial.
The cause was the system. How do I show non-repetition of something I did not control?
By showing what you have changed within the system you still work in. The authorities know the pressures are real and read for the individual’s control: the concern now escalated, the check now made, the limit now set, the shift now declined. The course treats organisational and systems pressures as a risk factor to be controlled rather than a reason to be offered.
How long does the control have to have held before the authority is satisfied?
Long enough to be evidenced over an interval, which is why the authorities ask for audits repeated after three and six months and supervision reports at set intervals, and why conditions carry review dates. The course covers showing the interval, and why remediation begun before it was required is read so differently.
How is non-repetition presented at a hearing?
As the practitioner the portfolio describes. The course’s section on portfolios and hearings covers reflective statements, organising the portfolio so the control for each risk factor can be found, behaviour at the hearing, using evidence, and the conduct the Tribunal’s decisions say strengthens an assurance.
How is this different from the Remediation course?
The Remediation course is about the four instruments themselves — CPD, audit, supervision, feedback — and the portfolio that holds them. This course is about what they are for: identifying the risk factor that produced the event, putting a control on it, and showing the authority that a repeat is now unlikely. They are usually taken together.
Which Council or Board is this course written for?
All 18. Every authority under the Act reviews programmes, conditions and orders against the likelihood of recurrence, and the Tribunal grades penalties for every profession the same way. The course reads the Medical Council, Nursing Council, Pharmacy Council and Dental Council expectations 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.
Courses that work alongside this one
This course is about the step after remediation — making the change hold. These are the courses that pair with it.
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.
Fitness to Practise for Healthcare Professionals
A fitness to practise notification in NZ: the three routes under the HPCA Act, your rights, and the outcomes from no action to cancellation. 2 CPD hours.
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.
Reflection for Fitness to Practise
Asked for a written reflection or a letter of reflection after a notification? Three models, what a strong statement contains, five pitfalls. 2 CPD hours.
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.
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.
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.
Ensuring No Repeat of Misconduct or Mistake in Future Practice
This course. What separates a mistake from misconduct, the contributing factors, recurrent patterns and blind spots, embedding learning into daily workflow, and preventative practice.
See all CPD courses for healthcare professionals in New Zealand →
Start today, finish at your own pace
Immediate access on purchase. Twelve months' access, a dated certificate on completion, and 2 CPD hours issued by Healthcare Ethics Courses.