Medical Council · NMBI · Dental Council · PSI · CORU · Complaint or fitness to practise inquiry

Rebuilding Trust of Patients, Colleagues, the Public and the Regulator for healthcare professionals facing a complaint to their regulator or a fitness to practise inquiry

Trust has been damaged — with a patient, the team, the public or your regulator.

Patients — a patient who no longer trusts you after an error or a complaint
Candour — something went wrong and was not explained, or was explained late
Public — a case reported in the media, or a post or comment online
Teams — trust lost within the team after a conflict, an incident or an investigation
Respect — a boundary or respect issue with a patient or a colleague, such as a colleague undermined in public
Probity — dishonesty, an inaccurate record or a financial concern
Regulator — conditions or restrictions, and the regulator’s confidence still to restore
Any other concern — where trust has been damaged and has to be rebuilt

Facing a complaint or a fitness to practise inquiry in which trust is the question — before the Medical Council, NMBI, the Dental Council, the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland or CORU?

This course is for a healthcare professional rebuilding trust after a complaint, an incident or a fitness to practise inquiry. This course helps you remediate — and show the remediation, with a dated certificate for your written response, your reflection, an undertaking or an inquiry.

Buy this course — €100 (€70 with Bulk Buy 10) Bulk Buy — from €70 a course

Price by number of courses
Courses	Price per course	You save
1	€100	No saving
2	€88	€25
3	€83	€50
5	€80	€100
10	€70	€300

Add courses. The saving is applied in the basket.

Immediate access · certificate on completion · twelve months' access

2 CPD hours
Self-paced
Written for Ireland
CPD certificate
From €70 a course (Bulk Buy of 10)

Our team

Dr Shehzad IqbalFounder, course author and facilitatorMBBS, MRCS, MRCGP
Dr Mo MirzaCourse facilitatorMedically trained, UCL London
Ludmila UpenieceBusiness development and supportPsychology, UEL London

At a glance

Who it is for: Any healthcare professional in Ireland rebuilding trust with patients, colleagues, the public or the regulator after a complaint, an incident, an investigation, conditions on practice or reputational damage
Regulator covered: Applies to practitioners registered with the Medical Council, NMBI, the Dental Council, the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland or CORU
Length: 10 sections, 83 lessons, 2 CPD hours
Format: Self-paced, online, immediate access, twelve months from purchase
Certificate: Certificate issued by Healthcare Ethics Courses on completion, dated, with the course title and 2 CPD hours
Price: €100 · from €70 a course (Bulk Buy of 10)

Certificate issued by Healthcare Ethics CoursesRemediation courses for regulatory processes.

2CPD hours, issued by Healthcare Ethics Courses

10Sections, nine closing with a reflective quiz

83Lessons, plus a post-course assessment

€100 (€70 with Bulk Buy 10)One off. Twelve months' access

The certificate you will receive

Sample certificate of continuing professional development for Rebuilding Trust of Patients, Colleagues, the Public and the Regulator, issued by Healthcare Ethics Courses, showing the name John Smith, 2 CPD hours and a date of completion, marked SAMPLE — Sample. Your certificate carries your name, the course title and the date you complete the course.

How healthcare professionals use it

With a written response to your regulator or its preliminary committee, alongside a reflection
When an undertaking or a consent is discussed, or in your evidence to an inquiry committee
As a dated record of remediation for the regulator when sanction is considered

Buy this course — €100 (€70 with Bulk Buy 10)

Who this course is for

After an error, an incident or a complaint

A patient, a family or a colleague no longer trusts you, and a complaint has followed. Section 3 covers rebuilding patient trust through communication, candour, apology, listening and clear explanation.

Facing a complaint to your regulator

The Medical Council, NMBI, the Dental Council, the PSI or CORU has written to tell you of a complaint. Your first written reply is where the trust your regulator can place in you is first read, and the course gives it a structure you can follow under pressure.

Facing an allegation of professional misconduct

Dishonesty, a boundary, a confidentiality breach, a financial concern: lapses that raise a question of character as well as skill. Section 2 covers how trust is lost through professional lapses and defensive responses, and Section 8 how it is rebuilt.

Facing a fitness to practise inquiry

The complaint has gone to a Fitness to Practise Committee, a Professional Conduct Committee or a Health Committee. Remediation completed before the hearing, dated and documented, is evidence you can put before the committee and the regulator.

Under conditions or restrictions

Conditions on your practice, supervised work or restrictions on certain activities. Section 6 covers restoring trust after serious concerns: engaging with conditions, treating them as protective, and giving regular evidence of compliance.

Trust lost with the team or the public

A conflict with colleagues, an investigation that affected the team, a case in the media or a comment online. Sections 4 and 5 cover public trust, professional reputation and trust within teams and organisations.

The concerns this course speaks to

How trust is lost

A complaint handled poorly, an incident not explained, a defensive response, the same small concern repeated. Section 2 covers the routes by which trust is lost, and why a response can damage it more than the original event.

Candour and apology

Something went wrong and the patient was not told, or was told late. Section 3 covers candour — acknowledging what happened, explaining what is known, being honest about what is still under review — an apology that is not conditional or defensive, and a lesson on the open disclosure the Patient Safety (Notifiable Incidents and Open Disclosure) Act 2023 requires of health services providers.

Public trust and conduct outside work

A case reported in the media; a post, a comment or behaviour outside work. Section 4 covers public trust, the role of media and public narratives, professional conduct outside clinical settings and communicating with the public appropriately.

Trust within the team

Poor handover, information withheld, colleagues undermined in public, blame shifted. Section 5 covers how trust is lost and rebuilt within teams, psychological safety, learning and blame cultures, and professionalism in disagreement.

Professional boundaries with a patient or a colleague

A boundary issue with a patient, or disrespect and undermining towards a colleague. The course counts boundary issues among the professional conduct concerns that require remediation (Section 8), and covers respectful, trust-preserving behaviour with colleagues as a daily practice (Section 9).

Probity, records and money

Dishonesty, an inaccurate record, a financial concern. Section 7 covers record-related scrutiny — never altering records, late entries clearly labelled — and the course treats probity as a lapse that raises a question of judgement and character.

The regulator’s confidence

Insight, remediation and future risk are what a regulator weighs. Section 6 covers regulatory trust: how future risk is assessed, what insight and remediation look like, engagement with the process, and behaviour change over time.

The first days of scrutiny

Pause before reacting, preserve records, clarify the allegation, seek early support and advice, and deal with any immediate patient safety risk. Section 7 covers the first 24 to 72 hours, and the response, interviews and hearings that follow.

Facing a complaint to your regulator or a fitness to practise inquiry? This course helps you remediate — and show it.

Buy this course — €100 (€70 with Bulk Buy 10)

What the course covers

Ten sections and 83 lessons, with a reflective quiz closing each of the first nine and a post-course assessment at the end.

Section 01

Introduction — Why Trust Matters in Irish Healthcare

Eight lessons

Section 02

How Trust Is Lost — Complaints, Incidents, and Professional Lapses

Nine lessons

Section 03

Patient Trust — Communication, Candour, and Compassion

Ten lessons

Section 04

Public Trust and Professional Reputation

Nine lessons

Section 05

Trust Within Teams and Healthcare Organisations

Nine lessons

Section 06

Regulatory Trust — Insight, Remediation, and Future Risk

Nine lessons

Section 07

Responding to Complaints, Investigations, and Scrutiny

Nine lessons

Section 08

Reflection, Insight, and Remediation as Trust-Rebuilding Tools

Nine lessons

Section 09

Applying Trust-Building Behaviours to Daily Practice

Nine lessons

Section 10

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Two lessons, Conclusion and Key Takeaways, and the post-course assessment

Show every lesson title

Section 01 · Introduction — Why Trust Matters in Irish Healthcare: What Do We Mean by “Trust” in Healthcare?; Why Trust Is Central to Safe and Effective Care; How Trust Is Assessed by Irish Regulators; Common Events That Damage Trust; Trust Loss Is About Perception as Much as Facts; Why Rebuilding Trust Is Possible — and Expected; Trust as Part of Professional Identity; The Role of This Course in Rebuilding Trust.
Section 02 · How Trust Is Lost — Complaints, Incidents, and Professional Lapses: Complaints as a Key Trigger for Loss of Trust; Adverse Incidents and Near Misses; Professional Lapses and Behavioural Concerns; Communication Failures as a Central Theme; Defensive Responses and Their Impact; Repeated Low-Level Issues and Patterns; The Role of Transparency and Honesty; Public and Media Perception; Why Trust Loss Concerns Regulators.
Section 03 · Patient Trust — Communication, Candour, and Compassion: Why Communication Is the Core of Patient Trust; Candour: What Being Open and Honest Really Means; Apologies and Expressions of Regret; Open Disclosure in Law: the Patient Safety (Notifiable Incidents and Open Disclosure) Act 2023; Active Listening as a Trust-Building Skill; Clear, Accessible Explanations; Compassion and Empathy in Difficult Conversations; Managing Uncertainty and Expectations Honestly; Written Communication and Trust; Regulatory Expectations in Ireland.
Section 04 · Public Trust and Professional Reputation: What Is Public Trust in Healthcare?; How Public Trust Is Built Over Time; Common Factors That Damage Public Trust; The Role of Media and Public Narratives; Professional Conduct Outside Clinical Settings; Rebuilding Public Trust After Damage; The Relationship Between Public Trust and Regulatory Trust; Communicating With the Public Appropriately; Regulatory Expectations in Ireland.
Section 05 · Trust Within Teams and Healthcare Organisations: Why Internal Trust Matters for Patient Safety; How Trust Is Lost Within Teams; The Role of Psychological Safety; Rebuilding Trust After Internal Conflict or Incidents; Trust Between Clinicians and Management; Learning Cultures vs Blame Cultures; Professionalism in Disagreement and Conflict; Rebuilding Trust After Complaints or Investigations; Regulatory Expectations in Ireland.
Section 06 · Regulatory Trust — Insight, Remediation, and Future Risk: What Does “Regulatory Trust” Mean in Practice?; How Regulators Assess Future Risk; Insight: What Regulators Look For; Remediation: The Evidence Regulators Need; Engagement With the Regulatory Process; The Role of Reflection in Building Regulatory Confidence; Behaviour Change Over Time; Restoring Trust After Serious Concerns; Irish Regulatory Context.
Section 07 · Responding to Complaints, Investigations, and Scrutiny: The First 24–72 Hours: What to Do Immediately; Understanding the Difference Between Complaint Processes and Regulatory Processes; Communication Principles During Scrutiny; Writing an Effective Response to a Complaint; Managing Interviews, Meetings, and Hearings; Handling Documentation and Record-Related Scrutiny; Maintaining Professional Behaviour During Stress; Demonstrating Learning and Early Remediation During the Process; What Regulators Look For During Scrutiny.
Section 08 · Reflection, Insight, and Remediation as Trust-Rebuilding Tools: Why Reflection, Insight, and Remediation Rebuild Trust; Reflection: What High-Quality Reflection Looks Like; Insight: Understanding Seriousness and Accepting Responsibility; Common Trust-Damaging Lapses That Require Remediation; Remediation: Turning Learning into Sustained Change; Evidence: What Rebuilds Regulator Confidence; Weak vs Strong Trust-Rebuilding Responses; Embedding Reflection and Remediation into Daily Practice; Regulatory Expectations in Ireland.
Section 09 · Applying Trust-Building Behaviours to Daily Practice: Developing a “Trust-First” Professional Mindset; Daily Communication Practices That Build Patient Trust; Honesty and Transparency in Routine Practice; Respectful and Trust-Preserving Behaviour With Colleagues; Documentation as a Visible Trust-Building Practice; Responding to Feedback, Concerns, and Less Serious Complaints; Maintaining Trust Under Stress and Scrutiny; Demonstrating Ongoing Reflection in Everyday Practice; Aligning Daily Practice With Regulatory Expectations.
Section 10 · Conclusion and Key Takeaways: Conclusion; Key Takeaways.

How to rebuild trust in a response to a complaint or fitness to practise inquiry

Whether the reader is a patient, an employer, a preliminary committee or an inquiry committee, a response is read for whether you can be trusted again. These are the four parts to set out, and what the course gives you for each.

Trust is not restored by saying you are trustworthy; it is restored by what others can see you do.

HonestyWhat happened, acknowledged openly, with what is still unknown said plainly.Section 3 covers candour, apology, open disclosure under the 2023 Act and managing uncertainty honestly.
InsightWhy it mattered, and its effect on patients, colleagues and public confidence.Sections 6 and 8 cover insight as the regulator reads it, and the signs of weak insight.
RemediationTargeted change, with evidence: CPD, audits, supervision, feedback.Section 8 covers remediation and the evidence that rebuilds a regulator’s confidence.
Consistency over timeThe change kept up in daily practice, not only during scrutiny.Section 9 covers trust-building behaviours in daily practice — and this course is a dated item for your portfolio.

An explanation that defends the decision before it acknowledges the distress reads as a defence, not as insight.

Take advice from your indemnifier, your union or professional body, or a solicitor before you respond to anyone.

Facing a complaint to your regulator or a fitness to practise inquiry? This course helps you remediate — and show it.

Buy this course — €100 (€70 with Bulk Buy 10)

How this course helps with a complaint or fitness to practise inquiry

Apology, insight and early admission

The Medical Council’s Guidance on Sanctions treats “an apology to anyone affected at an early stage” as evidence of insight, and NMBI’s Guidance on Sanctions lists evidence of an apology among mitigating factors. CORU’s trends report records a committee finding that “early admissions had demonstrated some limited insight”. The course covers patient trust and candour (Section 3), regulatory trust (Section 6) and reflection, insight and remediation as the tools that rebuild it (Section 8).

Open disclosure is now the law

The Patient Safety (Notifiable Incidents and Open Disclosure) Act 2023 commenced on 26 September 2024, apart from section 68. CORU says it applies to all public and private health services and staff, and that for a notifiable incident open disclosure must happen within 24 to 48 hours. Section 3 of the course has a lesson on the Act: the services it applies to, the notifiable incidents, the provider’s duty to disclose and the practitioner’s duty to inform the provider, and the disclosure meeting. A response about a lapse in candour should say whether and when the patient was told; for the duty itself, see Duty of Candour for Healthcare Professionals. For the stages from the first letter to the High Court, see the fitness to practise process in Ireland, explained.

Read the primary sources

Buy this course — €100 (€70 with Bulk Buy 10)

Who wrote it

Dr Shehzad Iqbal

Course author and facilitator, Healthcare Ethics Ireland

Dr Iqbal wrote this course. He combines clinical practice with a formal postgraduate qualification in healthcare law and ethics, and has worked with registrants across the regulated health professions, online and face to face, since 2020.

He founded Probity & Ethics in the United Kingdom in 2020 and Healthcare Ethics Courses, which issues the certificates, in 2025. More about us.

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

Written and reviewed by Dr Shehzad Iqbal. Last reviewed 22 October 2026.

In short

Rebuilding Trust of Patients, Colleagues, the Public and the Regulator is a two-hour, self-paced remediation course for healthcare professionals in Ireland — registered with the Medical Council, NMBI, the Dental Council, the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland or CORU — who are rebuilding trust after a complaint, an incident, an investigation or a fitness to practise inquiry. It explains why trust matters and how regulators assess it; covers how trust is lost through complaints, incidents and professional lapses; patient trust through communication, candour and compassion, with the open disclosure the 2023 Act requires; public trust and professional reputation; trust within teams and organisations; regulatory trust through insight, remediation and future risk; responding to complaints, investigations and scrutiny, from the first 24 to 72 hours; reflection, insight and remediation as trust-rebuilding tools; and trust-building behaviours in daily practice. Ten sections, the first nine closing with a reflective quiz, a post-course assessment, and a dated certificate from Healthcare Ethics Courses. It is remediation and dated evidence of it; it decides no complaint, and it is not a substitute for advice from your indemnifier, your union or professional body, or a solicitor.

Patient trust, public trust and regulatory trust

The course works with three kinds of trust, and a lapse can damage all three at once. Patient trust is the confidence that a professional will act in the patient’s interests, respect their dignity, protect their information and communicate honestly. Public trust is the wider belief that professionals behave ethically and transparently even when unsupervised. Regulatory trust is the regulator’s confidence that a professional is safe to practise and unlikely to repeat the concern.

The course treats each as rebuilt the same way: honestly, through insight into the effect of what happened, with targeted remediation and with behaviour that stays changed over time. Section 5 adds the trust of colleagues and teams, which a complaint or an investigation can damage as well.

In a written response, say what was damaged, for whom, and what you have done that someone else can see.

What these words mean

The three terms that decide where a complaint goes, and the words the course is built on.

Preliminary Proceedings Committee: The committee of the Medical Council, NMBI, the PSI and CORU that looks at a complaint before any inquiry: it may take no further action, suggest mediation, conclude the matter with an undertaking or a consent where its Act allows, or refer the complaint to an inquiry. At the Dental Council the Fitness to Practise Committee considers whether there is a prima facie case.
Fitness to practise inquiry: The hearing stage: before the Fitness to Practise Committee at the Medical Council, NMBI and the Dental Council, and before the Professional Conduct Committee or the Health Committee at the PSI and CORU. Any sanction heavier than an advice, admonishment or censure takes effect only when the High Court confirms it.
Professional misconduct: A ground of complaint under four of the Acts and, under the Dentists Act 1985, a ground for an application for an inquiry. The Dental Council describes it as a serious falling short in the standards expected of a dentist; the PSI as behaviour that goes against its Code of Conduct for registered pharmacists; CORU as any act, omission or pattern of conduct that breaches the Code.

Trust, candour and the other terms the course uses

Patient trust: The confidence that a professional will act in the patient’s best interests, respect their dignity, protect their information and communicate honestly.
Public trust: The wider community’s belief that healthcare professionals behave ethically, responsibly and transparently, even when not under direct supervision.
Regulatory trust: The regulator’s confidence that a professional is safe to practise, understands the standards and is unlikely to repeat the concern.
Candour: Acknowledging that something has gone wrong, explaining what is known without speculation, and being honest about what is still under review.
Psychological safety: The shared belief in a team that members can speak up, ask questions and admit errors without fear of ridicule or punishment.
Insight: Understanding what went wrong, why it mattered, and how it affected patients, colleagues and trust.
Remediation: Targeted, proportionate, sustained and verifiable change that reduces risk and rebuilds confidence.

The Acts a complaint is made and decided under

Ireland’s five health regulators each work under their own Act, all five amended by the Regulated Professions (Health and Social Care) (Amendment) Act 2020. These are the sections that say who may complain, on what grounds, and who looks at the complaint first.

Medical Council — Medical Practitioners Act 2007, section 57

A person, including the Council, may complain to the chief executive officer. The grounds include professional misconduct, poor professional performance, a relevant medical disability, and a failure to comply with a condition, an undertaking or a consent. The chief executive officer looks at the complaint first, an Authorised Officer may gather the facts, and the Preliminary Proceedings Committee decides whether there is enough cause to take further action. Read it.

For this course: The Medical Council treats an early apology to anyone affected as evidence of insight; Section 3 covers apology and candour.

NMBI — Nurses and Midwives Act 2011, section 55

A person, including the Board, may complain to the chief executive officer. The grounds include professional misconduct, poor professional performance, non-compliance with a code of professional conduct, a relevant medical disability, and an irregularity in relation to the custody, prescription or supply of a controlled drug. A Preliminary Proceedings Committee, assisted by a case officer, may refer a complaint to the Fitness to Practise Committee for a sworn oral inquiry. Read it.

For this course: NMBI counts evidence of an apology among mitigating factors; Section 3 covers patient trust, and Section 5 trust within teams.

Dental Council — Dentists Act 1985, section 38

The Council or any person may apply to the Fitness to Practise Committee for an inquiry, on grounds that include alleged professional misconduct and alleged unfitness to practise by reason of physical or mental disability. This is an application for an inquiry rather than a complaint: the Fitness to Practise Committee considers whether there is a prima facie case, and if there is, it holds the inquiry. Read it.

For this course: Section 6 covers regulatory trust: future risk, insight, remediation and behaviour change over time.

Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland — Pharmacy Act 2007, section 35

A complaint may be made in writing by or on behalf of any person, or by the registrar. The grounds include professional misconduct, poor professional performance, the effect on practice of a physical or mental ailment, emotional disturbance, or alcohol or drug addiction, and a failure to comply with a condition or an undertaking. The PSI separates a concern from a statutory complaint, which is for issues of a serious nature; its Preliminary Proceedings Committee may refer a complaint to a committee of inquiry or to mediation. Read it.

For this course: Section 7 covers record-related scrutiny, and Section 8 probity among the trust-damaging lapses that require remediation.

CORU — Health and Social Care Professionals Act 2005, section 52

A complaint may be made to the Council by or on behalf of any person, or by a registration board. The grounds include professional misconduct, which CORU describes as any act, omission or pattern of conduct that breaches the Code, and poor professional performance. The Preliminary Proceedings Committee screens out complaints that are trivial, vexatious, without substance or made in bad faith; the Professional Conduct Committee deals with conduct or competence, and the Health Committee with whether a registrant’s health is affecting their ability to practise. Read it.

For this course: CORU’s trends report records committees weighing early admissions; Section 8 covers reflection, insight and remediation as trust-rebuilding tools.

Also engaged: Sanctions — advice, admonishment or censure, conditions, suspension and cancellation (erasure under the Dentists Act): Medical Practitioners Act s.71, Nurses and Midwives Act s.69, Dentists Act ss.39 to 41, Pharmacy Act s.48, Health and Social Care Professionals Act s.66 · High Court confirmation — the heavier sanctions take effect only when the High Court confirms them; an advice, admonishment or censure on confirmation or once the appeal window of 21 or 30 days passes without an appeal · The 2020 Act — the Regulated Professions (Health and Social Care) (Amendment) Act 2020, which amended all five Acts in stages from 2021 to 2025.

What happens after a complaint reaches an Irish regulator

Each regulator has its own Act and its own names for the stages, and your letter tells you which stage you are at. At each of them the same three things are worth showing in writing: that you see what went wrong, that you understand it against your regulator’s code, and what you have changed, with dated evidence.

The complaint and the grounds
Anyone may complain, including the regulator itself. Under the Medical Practitioners Act and the Nurses and Midwives Act the complaint goes to the chief executive officer; under the Pharmacy Act it may be made by or on behalf of any person or by the registrar; under the Health and Social Care Professionals Act by or on behalf of any person or by a registration board. Under the Dentists Act the Council or any person applies to the Fitness to Practise Committee for an inquiry. Professional misconduct is a ground of complaint under the four other Acts and, under the Dentists Act 1985, a ground for an application for an inquiry.
The preliminary stage
The Medical Council, NMBI, the PSI and CORU each have a Preliminary Proceedings Committee. At the Medical Council the chief executive officer looks at a complaint first and may assign an Authorised Officer, and the committee decides whether there is enough cause to take further action. At NMBI the committee may refer a complaint to the Fitness to Practise Committee for a sworn oral inquiry, or suggest mediation or informal resolution; at the PSI it may refer a complaint to a committee of inquiry or to mediation; at CORU it screens out complaints that are trivial, vexatious, without substance or made in bad faith. At the Dental Council the Fitness to Practise Committee considers whether there is a prima facie case.
Undertakings, consents and mediation
A complaint can be concluded by agreement in some cases. At the Medical Council’s preliminary stage a doctor may be asked to undertake not to repeat the conduct, or to consent to censure (2025 procedures). At NMBI in 2024, 12 undertakings or consents concluded matters at the preliminary stage and the Fitness to Practise Committee recommended 32 (State of Complaints 2024). Undertakings were the largest single Committee of Inquiry outcome in the cases CORU concluded in 2022 to 2024: 13, against 7 censures (trends report). In 2024 the Dental Council accepted undertakings from a dentist instead of making a High Court application (Annual Report 2024). Mediation at NMBI and CORU needs the consent of both sides.
The inquiry
The inquiry committee is the Fitness to Practise Committee at the Medical Council, NMBI and the Dental Council, and the Professional Conduct Committee or the Health Committee at the PSI and CORU. At NMBI allegations against a nurse or midwife must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Medical Council inquiries are held in public unless the Council decides on a hearing in private or part private (Medical Council); CORU says its Professional Conduct Committee hearings are normally held in public and its Health Committee hearings normally in private.
The sanction and the High Court
Sanctions run from advice, admonishment or censure (admonishment or censure at the PSI and CORU) through conditions and suspension to cancellation, called erasure under the Dentists Act (MPA s.71, NMA s.69, Dentists Act s.39, Pharmacy Act s.48, HSCP Act s.66). The heavier sanctions take effect only when the High Court confirms them; an advice, admonishment or censure takes effect on confirmation or once the appeal window passes without an appeal: 21 days for doctors, nurses, midwives and dentists, 30 days for pharmacists and CORU registrants (MPA s.74, NMA s.72, Dentists Act s.41, Pharmacy Act s.50, HSCP Act s.68).
Interim measures and your first reply
Separately, the Medical Council says interim suspension is possible under section 60 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007; where there is a serious and immediate risk, the PSI’s Council can seek suspension from the High Court; and the Dental Council may apply to the High Court for suspension under section 44 of the Dentists Act. None of the five regulators publishes a fixed deadline for a first reply: the Medical Council gives not less than two weeks to respond to an Investigation Report, and NMBI says you may request an extension of time. Take advice before you reply.

Facing a complaint to your regulator or a fitness to practise inquiry? This course helps you remediate — and show it.

Buy this course — €100 (€70 with Bulk Buy 10)

Courses with the Ethics and Professionalism pair written to your own regulator’s code — for doctors, nurses and midwives, dentists, pharmacists and all other healthcare professionals, or every course →

Frequently asked questions

Can trust be rebuilt after a complaint or a finding?

The course is built on the view that it can, through honesty, acceptance of responsibility, insight into the effect, and behaviour that stays changed over time. No course or provider can promise that a particular patient, employer or regulator will restore its trust; what you can do is give them evidence to base it on.

Should I apologise to the patient?

An apology acknowledges the effect of what happened, not only the facts. The Medical Council treats an apology to anyone affected at an early stage as evidence of insight, and NMBI counts evidence of an apology among mitigating factors. Avoid a conditional apology, and ask your adviser how to word it in your own case.

What should I do in the first days after a complaint?

Pause before reacting, particularly in writing or online; preserve records and messages; read the complaint carefully to see exactly what is alleged; seek early support and advice; and deal with any ongoing risk to patients. Section 7 covers the first 24 to 72 hours and what follows.

The complaint has damaged trust with my colleagues. Does the course cover that?

Yes. Section 5 covers trust within teams and organisations: how it is lost, psychological safety, rebuilding trust after conflict or an investigation, trust between clinicians and management, and professionalism in disagreement. Section 9 covers respectful, trust-preserving behaviour with colleagues day to day.

I have conditions on my practice. How do I rebuild the regulator’s confidence?

Engage positively with the conditions, treat them as protective rather than punitive, and give regular evidence of compliance. Section 6 covers regulatory trust and behaviour change over time, and Section 8 the evidence that rebuilds confidence: CPD with reflective summaries, audits before and after, supervisor attestations and feedback.

Can this course be used as evidence?

It can be part of the evidence, but no course decides a complaint. It gives you a dated certificate of 2 CPD hours and the structure for a response built on honesty, insight, remediation and consistency over time. What a committee reads is the response and what supports it.

Should I take advice before I respond?

Yes — before anything is written to the regulator, a committee or your employer. If you work for a public health agency, note that the Clinical Indemnity Scheme says it does not provide representation at disciplinary proceedings or before professional regulatory bodies. Whatever your profession, ask your indemnifier, your union or professional body, or a solicitor. Nothing on this page is legal advice.

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

The course is 2 CPD hours, self-paced, with access for twelve months from purchase. The certificate is issued on completion, dated, with the course title and the CPD hours. Whether the hours count towards your own CPD requirement is for your regulator or scheme to say: doctors must undertake a minimum of 50 hours in each scheme year, and CORU registrants must achieve 30 CPD credits in every 12-month period.

Can I get a certificate with a later date?

No. The certificate records the date you completed the course, and that date does not change. If your regulator, an inquiry committee or an employer asks for recent evidence, you buy the course again: half price within twelve months of your original purchase, the full €100 after that.

Will anyone be told that I am taking the course?

No. Nobody is told you are enrolled. We do not share participant details with any regulator, an employer, a union or an indemnifier; the certificate reaches them only if you attach it to your own response.

Trust is rebuilt through candour, insight and remediation. These are the courses that pair with this one.

Duty of Candour for Healthcare Professionals

When the duty applies, talking with patients and families after an adverse event, and candour during complaints and reviews.