Council or Board notification · All 18 responsible authorities

Professional Ethics Course for Health Practitioners facing a Council or Board investigation, complaint or allegation

The allegation is that your conduct was unethical or unprofessional, in any role your registration covers — clinical, managerial, supervisory, teaching, research or online.

Unethical — an allegation of unethical or unprofessional conduct
Boundaries — a boundaries breach with a patient or a colleague
Dishonesty — a record, a claim, a CV or a declaration not true
Consent — treatment or research without proper informed consent
Confidentiality — patient information shared without consent
Conflict — an interest not declared, or a decision made unfairly
Accountability — a concern not raised, or an error not owned
Any other — ethical or professional concern, in any role you hold

Facing an allegation of unethical or unprofessional conduct 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, an employer’s investigation or a Professional Conduct Committee investigation about unethical or unprofessional conduct in any role — clinical, supervisory, managerial, teaching, research or online
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, 49 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

47Lessons, plus a post-course assessment

NZ$200One off. Twelve months' access

Who this course is for

Facing an allegation of unethical or unprofessional behaviour or conduct

The letter says your conduct was unethical or unprofessional — that it fell short of your authority’s standards — in a consultation, a meeting, a classroom, a research project or a post. The standard follows your registration, not your job title, and this course is how you answer the allegation: the principle named, the lapse owned, the change shown.

The concern arose as a manager, a supervisor or a leader

A junior not supported, a concern not escalated, a decision that treated someone unfairly, a remark to a colleague you managed. The Tribunal has censured a nurse who managed a unit and harassed a caregiver and two student nurses on placement, and barred him from acting as a preceptor for a year. The course treats fairness and accountability where leadership tests them.

The concern arose in teaching, research or writing

A student assessed unfairly, research consent or data handled loosely, authorship or a qualification overstated, an interest not declared in a publication. Academic and research roles are practice under your registration, and the course covers honesty and accountability where they are tested there.

The concern arose online or outside work

A post, a review or a comment about a patient, an employer or a colleague; conduct outside work that reflects on your profession. The Tribunal has censured and fined a doctor who posted negative reviews of former employers under a false name, and suspended a nurse for dishonesty outside her nursing work. Your authority’s standard applies outside work too.

Your employer has raised it, or notified your authority

An employment investigation, a disciplinary meeting, a resignation or a dismissal. An employer must tell the authority when a practitioner resigns or is dismissed for reasons of competence, and can notify a conduct concern too. Structured, dated remediation completed now is evidence for both processes.

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

The concerns this course speaks to

An allegation of unethical or unprofessional behaviour, conduct or action

The phrase the letter uses before it describes the event, and it can come from a consultation, a management decision, a classroom, a research project or a post. Under section 118 every authority sets standards of ethical conduct, and they apply in every role your registration reaches; the Medical Council’s statement on unprofessional behaviour (2020) names bullying, harassment, discrimination, rudeness and inappropriate communication, at work or outside it, as unprofessional. The course opens by defining professional ethics through honesty, fairness, accountability and respect, so that you can say which was engaged and in which role.

Professional and ethical boundaries

A boundaries breach with a patient or a colleague: a relationship, a gift, a message after hours, a dual role not declared, remarks or advances to a colleague, a student or someone you supervise. The Tribunal has cancelled the registration of a clinical manager who used his position to pressure staff, and censured a unit manager for harassing a caregiver and two student nurses. Every authority places the responsibility with the practitioner.

Probity and an allegation of dishonesty

A record, a claim, a CV, a reference, a declaration to your authority, an authorship or a research result that was not true. The Tribunal has found false declarations in annual practising certificate applications to be professional misconduct, and cancelled the registration of a nurse who put a forged reference before it. Honesty is the first of the four principles, and a probity lapse is remediated by an honest account and a record that stays accurate.

Consent

A treatment begun without proper informed consent, a research participant who did not understand, a student or a junior whose agreement was assumed. Respect for the person’s choice is the principle, under Rights 6 and 7 of the Code of Rights and every authority’s consent standard; it is remediated by the conversation now held properly, and recorded, over time.

Confidentiality

Patient information shared without consent, a record opened without a reason, a colleague’s or a student’s private matter discussed, research data shared beyond its consent. Respect and honesty together, under every code and the Health Information Privacy Code 2020; remediated by a protocol now followed and an audit of access.

Conflicts of interest and fairness

An interest not declared in a referral, a product, an appointment, a mark or a publication; a patient, a junior or a student treated differently. The Medical Council’s statement on commercial organisations (2023) sets out how a conflict, real or perceived, is recognised, assessed and managed. Fairness is the principle; a register of interests, kept and declared, is the remediation.

Accountability for a decision or a failure

A concern not raised, an error not owned, a team failure explained as someone else’s. The Medical Council’s statement on unprofessional behaviour (2020) asks senior doctors to model the behaviour trainees copy, and warns that behaviour which makes others hesitate to report errors or raise concerns puts patients at risk. A practitioner who owned the failure early is read very differently from one who was found.

Health, fitness and any other concern

Practising, supervising, managing or teaching while unwell, impaired or exhausted, or a condition not declared. Every authority’s health route exists for the condition and its support, and a declaration made now, with a plan behind it, moves the matter toward it. Any ethics allegation is measured against your own authority’s standard of ethical conduct, and the course reads the Medical, Nursing, Pharmacy and Dental Councils’ standards in their own words.

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

Section 01

Introduction — Why Professional Ethics Matters in New Zealand Healthcare

Four lessons

Section 02

Defining Professional Ethics — Principles, Values, and Professional Identity

Four lessons

Section 03

Regulator Perspectives — MCNZ, NCNZ, Pharmacy Council, Dental Council, HPCA Authorities

Six lessons

Section 04

Core Principles of Professional Ethics — Honesty, Fairness, Accountability, Respect

Five lessons

Section 05

Common Ethical Challenges in Practice — Consent, Confidentiality, Boundaries, Probity

Five lessons

Section 06

Weak vs Strong Responses to Ethical Concerns

Six lessons

Section 07

Case Studies — Professional Ethics in Action Across New Zealand

Six lessons

Section 08

Using Reflection and Insight to Strengthen Professional Ethics

Six lessons

Section 09

Embedding Ethics into Daily Practice and Professional Identity

Five lessons

Section 10

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Key takeaways and the post-course assessment

Show every lesson title

Section 01 · Introduction — Why Professional Ethics Matters in New Zealand Healthcare: Why Professional Ethics Matters for Patients; Why Professional Ethics Matters for Regulators; Why Professional Ethics Matters for the Profession; Ethics Beyond Compliance.
Section 02 · Defining Professional Ethics — Principles, Values, and Professional Identity: Principles of Professional Ethics; Values that Guide Ethical Behaviour; Professional Identity and Ethics; Why Defining Professional Ethics Matters.
Section 03 · Regulator Perspectives — 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 04 · Core Principles of Professional Ethics — Honesty, Fairness, Accountability, Respect: Honesty; Fairness; Accountability; Respect; How These Principles Work Together.
Section 05 · Common Ethical Challenges in Practice — Consent, Confidentiality, Boundaries, Probity: Consent; Confidentiality; Boundaries; Probity; Why These Challenges Matter.
Section 06 · Weak vs Strong Responses to Ethical Concerns: Characteristics of Weak Responses; Characteristics of Strong Responses; Case Comparison — Medicine (Consent); Case Comparison — Nursing (Boundaries); Case Comparison — Dentistry (Financial Probity); Why Strong Responses Persuade Regulators.
Section 07 · Case Studies — Professional Ethics in Action Across New Zealand: Medicine — Consent and Autonomy; Nursing — Confidentiality; Pharmacy — Probity; Dentistry — Financial Integrity; Allied Health — Boundaries; Shared Lessons from Case Studies.
Section 08 · Using Reflection and Insight to Strengthen Professional Ethics: Reflection in Professional Ethics; Insight in Professional Ethics; Reflection + Insight = Ethical Assurance; Structured Models to Support Reflection; Why Regulators Value Reflection and Insight; Practical Tips for Strengthening Professional Ethics.
Section 09 · Embedding Ethics into Daily Practice and Professional Identity: Ethics as Part of Professional Identity; Daily Habits that Reinforce Ethics; Mentorship and Role Modelling; Building Resilience to Sustain Ethics; Ethics 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 Council or Board, a Professional Conduct Committee and the Tribunal read an ethics response, from whatever role, by asking the four principles as questions. The course teaches the answer to each.

The standard follows the registration, not the job title.

Honesty: is everything in the response true?The record, the claim, the declaration and the account, checked against the file first — and a probity lapse named as one.The course shows the honest account that decides how the rest is read.
Fairness: is the other person seen?The patient, the colleague, the junior or the student: how they were treated, described from their side, with the interest or the assumption behind it named.The course reads fairness through Te Tiriti o Waitangi and equity.
Accountability: is the failure owned?In the first person, without the roster, the institution or the team offered as the reason — including your part of a shared failure.The course sets weak and strong responses side by side in medicine, nursing and dentistry.
Respect, and what has changedA response that respects the person it is about; then the change, in the role concerned — the interest registered, the junior supported, the concern escalated — dated and confirmable.This course is the dated item you attach — and it names the other evidence.

A practitioner who owned the failure early is read very differently from one who was found.

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

Four principles that follow your registration into every role, four common challenges, and the response that persuades whichever role the concern arose in.

It gives you the four principles as working tools

Honesty: in what is said, written, claimed and declared. Fairness: in how patients, colleagues, juniors and students are treated and how decisions are made. Accountability: for decisions, errors and failures, including shared ones. Respect: for persons, choices, privacy and dignity. For each, what it requires in practice, what a lapse looks like in New Zealand, and how the four work together.

It works through the four common challenges

Consent, confidentiality, boundaries and probity — each with what the standard requires and the situations in each role where it is tested: the consultation, the ward, the management meeting, supervision, the classroom, the research protocol and online. Then the characteristics of a strong response to an ethical concern, with case comparisons in medicine (consent), nursing (boundaries) and dentistry (financial probity): the principle named, the lapse owned, the effect acknowledged, change shown.

It shows professional ethics in action across five professions

A doctor and consent, a nurse and confidentiality, a pharmacist and probity, a dentist and financial integrity, an allied health practitioner and boundaries: what the authority found, what the response contained, and how the practitioner went on to practise. The lessons are shared because the principles are.

It joins reflection and insight to ethical assurance, and ethics to identity

Reflection and insight in professional ethics, the structured models that support reflection, and why the authorities value both; then ethics as part of professional identity — daily habits, mentorship and role modelling, and ethics across a career, including the roles you have not held yet. Counts: a reflection that names the principle and the role; CPD on the challenge concerned, this course’s dated certificate among it; a register of interests kept and declared; supervision or mentoring on leadership, teaching or research with written reports; feedback from colleagues, juniors or students gathered through someone else. Counts for little: a statement that no rule was broken, a defence of the outcome, a character reference in place of an account, hours on another subject. 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

The Professional Ethics Course 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 is built on the fact that professional ethics follows your registration into every role — clinical, supervisory, managerial, academic, research and online. It defines professional ethics through principles, values and identity; reads the Medical Council, the Nursing Council, the Pharmacy Council, the Dental Council and the allied HPCA authorities side by side; gives the four principles — honesty, fairness, accountability, respect — as working tools; works through consent, confidentiality, boundaries and probity in each role; shows the response that persuades with case comparisons and five professions’ case studies; and joins reflection and insight to ethical assurance and identity. 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 professional ethics

The standard follows the registration, not the job title. Under section 118 of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 every responsible authority sets standards of ethical conduct for its profession, and those standards apply to a registered practitioner in every role: the doctor who manages, teaches or researches, the nurse who leads a unit or supervises a student on placement, the pharmacist, dentist or allied practitioner who examines, publishes or posts. Conduct outside work is read against them too — the Medical Council’s statement on unprofessional behaviour covers communication on social media whether or not it relates to work. An ethics concern in any of those roles is handled under the same Act, by the same authority, on the conduct route.

The course defines professional ethics through four principles the authorities share — honesty, fairness, accountability and respect — and works through consent, confidentiality, boundaries and probity in each role. Two things are New Zealand-specific. The first is the employer and the institution: a concern from a non-clinical role can reach the authority through an employer, a university or a research body, so the course covers how those processes sit beside the authority’s. The second is Te Tiriti o Waitangi: fairness and respect are read through it, cultural competence is a standard every authority must set, and a lapse toward a Māori patient, colleague or student is an ethics concern to each authority.

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.
Professional ethics: The principles and values a registered practitioner is expected to act on in every role their registration reaches — clinical, supervisory, managerial, academic, research, online. Set by each authority under section 118 of the Act.
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.

Honesty, fairness, accountability, respect, dual role, conflict of interest, ethical assurance and the other terms the course uses

Honesty: That what is said, written, claimed, declared and published is true. The first of the four principles, engaged by any concern about what was said, written, claimed or published.
Fairness: That patients, colleagues, juniors and students are treated equitably and decisions are made without a hidden interest. The principle that leadership and teaching roles put to the test.
Accountability: Ownership of decisions, errors and failures, including shared ones, and the willingness to be answerable for them. Read in every role, and closely in a leader.
Respect: Regard for persons, their choices, their privacy and their dignity — patients, colleagues, students, participants — in the room and online. The principle beneath consent and confidentiality.
Dual role: Holding two relationships with the same person — clinician and supervisor, manager and friend, researcher and treating practitioner — where one could influence the other. Managed by disclosure and separation; a source of boundary and fairness concerns in non-clinical roles.
Conflict of interest: A personal or financial interest that could influence, or be seen to influence, a professional decision in any role: a referral, an appointment, a mark, a publication. Managed by disclosure; remediated by disclosure made now and a register kept.
Ethical assurance: The course’s term for what reflection and insight together give a reader: confidence that the practitioner can see the ethical dimension of a situation now, in whatever role, and will act on the principle next time.
Remediation: Change someone else can confirm, targeted to the principle and the role: CPD on the challenge concerned, supervision or mentoring with reports, a register of interests, a protocol followed, feedback from colleagues, students or patients gathered on purpose.

The provisions a professional ethics concern engages

Professional ethics follows your registration: the standard is the one your own Council or Board publishes, and it applies wherever you practise. These are the provisions of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 an ethics concern runs under, and the standards it is measured against.

Section 118 — the authority sets your standards

Every responsible authority must set standards of clinical competence, cultural competence and ethical conduct for its profession. Those standards apply in every role the registration reaches — clinical, supervisory, managerial, academic, research and online — and an ethics concern from any of them is measured against your own authority’s wording. Read it.

For this course: Conflicts of interest, boundaries, consent and scope are each governed by the authority’s standard, and the course reads each topic against the wording that applies.

Section 71 — referral to a Professional Conduct Committee

Where the concern is about conduct the authority refers it to a Professional Conduct Committee — two members of the profession and a layperson, with a legal adviser — which investigates independently and asks for your written response. An ethics concern from any role travels this route, and the response is where the principle engaged is named and answered. Read it.

For this course: A professional ethics concern is a conduct concern, and the course explains the Committee referral and what its report will address.

Section 100 — the grounds of discipline

The Tribunal may discipline for professional misconduct — malpractice or negligence, or conduct that has brought or was likely to bring discredit to the profession — and for a conviction that reflects adversely on fitness to practise. Conduct that discredits the profession is the ground on which an ethics breach is charged, and the Tribunal has found it in conduct towards colleagues and students, in declarations to an authority and in conduct outside work. Read it.

For this course: Conduct that fails the profession’s ethical standard reaches the threshold of discipline when it is serious; the course explains how seriousness is judged.

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. The Tribunal weighs insight, remediation and conduct since the events, and has ordered a course in ethics, mentoring and supervision, and a bar on acting as a preceptor, as part of its penalties. Read it.

For this course: The Tribunal’s penalties in ethics cases weigh whether the practitioner saw the ethical question, and the course is about being able to show that they did.

Also engaged: Section 80 — counselling and no further action are available where the principle has been understood · Medical Council — Good medical practice, and the statements on unprofessional behaviour and commercial organisations · Nursing Council — the Code of Conduct, with its guidelines on boundaries and social media · Pharmacy Council — the Code of Ethics’ integrity principles · Psychologists Board — the Code of Ethics for Psychologists Working in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

Professional ethics at each stage, whatever your role

The Act does not ask what role you were in; it asks whether your conduct met your authority’s standard. The same stages apply whichever authority registers you.

The concern: a patient, a colleague, a student or an employer
A concern arrives from a patient, a colleague, a junior, a student, a research body or an employer — and an employer must tell the authority when a practitioner resigns or is dismissed for reasons of competence. The Registrar or a delegated committee reads it against your authority’s standard of ethical conduct, the same standard whatever the role.
The Registrar: which principle, and is anyone at risk?
Your first response is read for whether you can name the principle engaged and show a change. A response that does both can end a matter here, with no further action or an educational letter — the Medical Council sent 37 educational letters in 2024/25.
A competence review
Where an ethics concern suggests practice below the standard for your scope — consent or records in a clinical role, supervision in a supervisory one — the authority may review your competence and order a programme, conditions or supervision. Every authority describes this route as educative.
The health route
Where a condition may have affected your conduct in any role, the authority may require a medical examination and place conditions on your practice while you are unable to practise safely. A declaration made now, with a plan behind it, moves the matter toward support.
A Professional Conduct Committee
Members of your profession and a layperson, with a legal adviser, read your response beside the record and the employer’s or the institution’s file, and meet you. They ask the four questions — honesty, fairness, accountability, respect; counselling or no further action can follow a response that answers them, and a charge can follow one that argues with the complaint instead.
The Tribunal
A legally qualified chair, three members of your profession and a layperson decide whether the conduct meets a ground and choose the penalty. Its decisions in ethics matters, clinical and otherwise, weigh the principle named, the lapse owned and the change shown, and any order is reviewed against what has changed since.

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

The concern is about something I did as a manager, not as a clinician. Does my Council or Board have any interest in it?

Yes. The standards of ethical conduct your authority publishes apply to you in every role your registration reaches, and the Act gives the authority the same conduct route for an ethics concern from a management meeting as from a consultation. The course is built around that fact, and its fairness and accountability lessons are written for exactly these concerns.

What does remediation look like for an ethics concern — and will my Council or Board accept this course as part of it?

The same instruments, aimed at the role: CPD on the challenge concerned; a register of interests kept and declared; a protocol for assessment, appointment or data handling now followed; supervision or mentoring on leadership or teaching with reports; feedback from juniors, students or colleagues gathered through someone else; and a reflection that names the principle. 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, your employer, a university or research body, 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.

What should my written response contain?

The event in order and in the first person; the role you were in and the principle engaged, named from your authority’s own standard; the effect on the person — patient, colleague, junior, student, participant — in their terms; what you understand now; and what has changed, with dates and someone else’s confirmation. The course sets weak and strong responses to the same events side by side in medicine, nursing and dentistry.

Which of the four principles does my concern engage?

One may lead and another follow. A record or a declaration engages honesty; how a person was treated or a decision was made engages fairness; an error or a failure not owned engages accountability; a confidence, a choice or a dignity not honoured engages respect. The course’s fourth section is written so that you can name yours, and the response section on this page turns each into a question.

I supervise or teach. What are the ethical questions that are new there?

Fairness in assessment and opportunity; a dual role with someone you also treat or befriend; a conflict of interest in an appointment or a mark; confidentiality of a junior’s or a student’s private matter; accountability for a concern a junior raised and you did not escalate. The course treats each where it is tested in supervision and teaching.

I do research. Is research ethics the same thing?

It overlaps. Research consent, data handling, authorship and declared interests are professional ethics under your registration, whatever an ethics committee separately required, and the authorities receive concerns about them. The course covers honesty and accountability where they are tested in research, and consent and confidentiality for participants.

The concern is about something I posted. Is that professional ethics?

Yes. Respect and confidentiality apply online as in the room, several authorities have published on it, and a post with a professional title attached, a comment about a patient or a colleague, or a message to a patient from a personal account is read against the same standard. The course treats digital conduct as ordinary professional ethics, and it is remediated the same way.

How is this different from the Medical Ethics course, and Ethics for Healthcare Professionals?

Medical Ethics is about the clinical decision: the five principles at the point of decision, consent and confidentiality as duties, and boundaries in clinical relationships. Ethics for Healthcare Professionals sets out the principles and the codes. This course is ethics in every role you hold — clinical, supervisory, managerial, teaching, research and online — through honesty, fairness, accountability and respect. Where the concern arose outside the consultation, start here.

Which Council or Board is this course written for?

All 18. Every authority under the Act sets standards of ethical conduct that follow the practitioner into every role, and every one handles an ethics concern on the same conduct route. The course reads the Medical Council, Nursing Council, Pharmacy Council and Dental Council 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 or your recertification.

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

Ethics for Healthcare Professionals

A Council or Board notification about ethics in NZ: confidentiality, consent, boundaries, social media, records or honesty. 2 CPD hours, NZ$200.

2 CPD hours · NZ$200

Professionalism for Healthcare Professionals

A Council or Board notification about conduct in NZ: boundaries, probity, scope, records, consent or cultural safety. 2 CPD hours, NZ$200.

2 CPD hours · NZ$200

Ensuring Teamwork and Collaboration

Teamwork and collaboration course for NZ health practitioners facing a handover, escalation or team-conflict concern raised with a Council or Board. 2 hrs.

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

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

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