Medical Council · NMBI · Dental Council · PSI · CORU · Complaint or fitness to practise inquiry
Reflection for Fitness to Practise for healthcare professionals facing a complaint to their regulator or a fitness to practise inquiry
Asked to write a reflection, or told the one you wrote said too little?
- Description — an account of what happened, with no analysis of why
- Excuses — a busy day, tiredness or short staffing offered as the reason
- Apology — an apology or an explanation where a reflection was asked for
- Standards — your regulator’s code never named in the reflection
- Records — a backdated note or an altered record, and the reflection minimises it
- Boundaries — a boundaries breach with a patient or a colleague, reflected on as friendliness
- Portfolio — a reflective portfolio requested, with no structure or evidence
- Any other concern — about a reflection your regulator or employer has asked for
Facing a complaint or a fitness to practise inquiry in which your reflection will be read — by the Medical Council, NMBI, the Dental Council, the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland or CORU?
This course is for a healthcare professional asked to write a reflection in a complaint or 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.
| 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)
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 asked for a reflective statement or portfolio — in a response to a complaint, at the preliminary stage, at a fitness to practise inquiry, under an undertaking or conditions, or by an employer
- Regulator covered
- Applies to practitioners registered with the Medical Council, NMBI, the Dental Council, the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland or CORU
- Length
- 10 sections, 50 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.
The certificate you will receive
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
Who this course is for
Asked to write a reflective statement
Your regulator, a committee, your employer or your adviser has asked for a reflection on what happened. The course shows what one contains — what happened, why, what effect it had, the standard engaged and what has changed — and sets five weak and strong statements side by side.
Told your reflection was too general
The first one described the events, explained them or defended them. Section 6 separates reflection from apology, explanation and justification, and Section 4 gives you three models to structure the next one.
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 your reflection is first read, and the course gives it a structure you can follow under pressure.
Before a Preliminary Proceedings Committee
At the Medical Council, NMBI, the PSI and CORU the committee looks at a complaint before any inquiry, and what you have written is in front of it. A reflection that names the standard and the change can be put before the committee with dated evidence of what you have done.
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.
Asked for a reflective portfolio
A portfolio is more than a diary. Section 8 sets out its structure — introduction, reflective statements, CPD certificates, audit results, supervisor or mentor reports, feedback and an action plan — and the weaknesses that undermine one.
The concerns this course speaks to
Description without analysis
A reflection that retells the events and stops there. The course works through Gibbs’ six-stage cycle (description, feelings, evaluation, analysis, conclusion, action plan), Rolfe’s three questions and Johns’ structured prompts, each with a worked example (Section 4).
Excuses and minimisation
It was just a busy day. I was tired. It did not harm patients. I did not use their name. Section 3 sets five weak reflective statements beside strong ones and names what is wrong with each: excuse, minimisation, denial of impact, assumption, dismissal.
An apology, an explanation or a justification
An apology is necessary but not enough; an explanation gives context but cannot replace accountability; a justification weakens credibility. Section 6 takes each in turn and shows the reflection that goes beyond it.
The standard never named
A reflection that does not say which duty the conduct breached gives the reader nothing to test. Section 5 links reflection to the codes of the Medical Council, NMBI, the PSI, the Dental Council and CORU, one lesson for each.
Dishonesty in records
Wound care not recorded and the notes backdated; stock records altered to hide an error. Section 3 compares weak and strong reflections on both, and Section 4 works the falsified records through Rolfe’s What? So what? Now what?
Professional boundaries with a patient or a colleague
A friendship with a vulnerable client that drifted beyond the professional role, or a relationship with a colleague that did the same. The reflection is the same exercise with a patient or a colleague: name the boundary, the risk and the safeguard. Section 7 follows a case of boundary drift from a weak reflection to a strong one.
Consent and confidentiality
An extraction carried out without the alternatives discussed; a client’s case talked about in public. The course compares weak and strong reflections on consent and confidentiality lapses in Sections 3 and 7, across dentistry, pharmacy and social work.
A portfolio without structure
Generic reflections, CPD unrelated to the lapse, no independent verification, one-off activity instead of sustained change. Section 8 names these weaknesses and sets out a structure in which every item is linked to the concern and to the code.
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 50 lessons, with a reflective quiz closing each of the first nine and a post-course assessment at the end.
Introduction — Why Reflection Matters in Irish Healthcare Regulation
Four lessons
Regulator Perspectives on Reflection — Medical Council, NMBI, PSI, Dental Council, CORU
Six lessons
Weak vs Strong Reflective Statements in Fitness-to-Practise Cases
Six lessons
Reflective Models — Gibbs, Rolfe, Johns and Their Application
Four lessons
Linking Reflection to Regulator Standards and Codes of Conduct
Six lessons
Reflection vs Apology, Explanation, and Justification
Four lessons
Case Studies — Reflection in Action Across Irish Healthcare Professions
Six lessons
How to Compile Reflective Portfolios for Regulatory Submissions
Six lessons
Embedding Reflection into Daily Practice and Professional Identity
Six lessons
Conclusion and Key Takeaways
Two lessons, Conclusion and Key Takeaways, and the post-course assessment
Show every lesson title
- Section 01 · Introduction — Why Reflection Matters in Irish Healthcare Regulation
- What Is Reflection?; Why Reflection Matters for Patients; Why Reflection Matters for Regulators; Reflection as a Lifelong Duty.
- Section 02 · Regulator Perspectives on Reflection — Medical Council, NMBI, PSI, Dental Council, CORU
- Medical Council of Ireland; Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland (NMBI); Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland (PSI); Dental Council of Ireland; CORU — Health and Social Care Professionals Council; Shared Regulator Themes.
- Section 03 · Weak vs Strong Reflective Statements in Fitness-to-Practise Cases
- Medicine — Prescribing Error; Nursing — Documentation Lapse; Pharmacy — Falsified Records; Dentistry — Consent Failure; Allied Health (CORU) — Confidentiality Breach; Shared Patterns.
- Section 04 · Reflective Models — Gibbs, Rolfe, Johns and Their Application
- Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle (1988); Rolfe’s Reflective Model (2001); Johns’ Model of Structured Reflection (1994); Choosing the Right Model.
- Section 05 · Linking Reflection to Regulator Standards and Codes of Conduct
- Medical Council of Ireland; Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland (NMBI); Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland (PSI); Dental Council of Ireland; CORU — Health and Social Care Professionals Council; Why Linking to Standards Strengthens Reflection.
- Section 06 · Reflection vs Apology, Explanation, and Justification
- Reflection vs Apology; Reflection vs Explanation; Reflection vs Justification; Regulator Perspective.
- Section 07 · Case Studies — Reflection in Action Across Irish Healthcare Professions
- Medicine — Prescribing Error; Nursing — Documentation Failure; Pharmacy — Confidentiality Breach; Dentistry — Consent Lapse; Allied Health (CORU) — Boundary Drift; Shared Lessons Across Professions.
- Section 08 · How to Compile Reflective Portfolios for Regulatory Submissions
- Purpose of a Reflective Portfolio; Structure of a Reflective Portfolio; Evidence to Include; Irish Examples; Common Weaknesses in Portfolios; Best Practice Tips.
- Section 09 · Embedding Reflection into Daily Practice and Professional Identity
- Reflection as Identity; Daily Habits of Reflective Practitioners; Reflection in Multidisciplinary Teams; Role of Mentorship and Supervision; Resilience Through Reflection; Sustaining Reflection Across a Career.
- Section 10 · Conclusion and Key Takeaways
- Conclusion; Key Takeaways.
How to write a reflection for a complaint or fitness to practise inquiry
Whether it goes to a preliminary committee, an inquiry committee or the regulator deciding a sanction, a reflection is read for analysis, not for length. These are the four parts to set out, and what the course gives you for each.
A reflection that describes what happened tells the reader what you saw; one that analyses it tells them what you understood.
- What happenedThe facts, in the first person, without a qualifying clause.Section 4 starts each model with description: Gibbs’ first stage, Rolfe’s What?
- Why it happened and why it mattersThe contributing factors, and the effect on the patient, colleagues and trust.Gibbs’ analysis stage, Rolfe’s So what? and Johns’ question about how your actions affected others.
- The standard engagedThe duty in your own regulator’s code that the conduct did not meet.Section 5 has a lesson on each of the five regulators’ codes.
- What will be differentSpecific, dated, and confirmable by someone else.Gibbs’ action plan, Rolfe’s Now what?, and the portfolio in Section 8 — this course is a dated item for it.
An apology that continues with but reads as a defence, not as reflection.
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
A reflection is read for insight
NMBI’s Guidance on Sanctions says “Mere acknowledgement of the findings does not necessarily demonstrate insight.” The Medical Council’s Guidance on Sanctions says a doctor may demonstrate insight by providing evidence of their understanding of the problem. A reflection is where that understanding is set down: the course compares weak and strong reflective statements in five situations (Section 3) and five case studies across medicine, nursing, pharmacy, dentistry and the CORU professions (Section 7).
Structure, standards and a portfolio
Three models give a reflection its structure (Section 4); a lesson on each regulator’s code gives it its standard (Section 5); and Section 8 shows how reflective statements, CPD certificates, audits, supervisor reports and feedback are put together in a portfolio. CORU’s trends report says “Every complaint represents an opportunity for learning and reflection”. For the stages from the first letter to the High Court, see the fitness to practise process in Ireland, explained.
Read the primary sources
- Guidance on Sanctions Imposed by the Medical Council (28 May 2024)
- Undertakings and Consents Guidance — Medical Council
- Guidance on Sanctions — Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland
- Fitness to practice — Dental Council of Ireland
- Disciplinary committees — Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland
- What happens when CORU receives a complaint
- CORU fitness to practise trends report (2022 to 2024)
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 .
In short
Reflection for Fitness to Practise 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 have been asked for a reflective statement or portfolio in a complaint, a preliminary decision or a fitness to practise inquiry. It defines reflection as the structured analysis of an experience and a plan to improve; sets out how the five regulators’ codes frame it; compares weak and strong reflective statements in five situations; works through Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle, Rolfe’s model and Johns’ model of structured reflection, and how to choose between them; links reflection to each regulator’s code; separates reflection from apology, explanation and justification; follows five case studies across the professions; and shows how to compile a reflective portfolio. 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.
Reflection, apology, explanation and justification
A reflection is not an apology, an explanation or a defence, although it may contain the first two. An apology acknowledges regret and the harm caused. An explanation gives the context — workload, fatigue, a system that did not help. A justification defends the conduct. The course treats the apology as necessary but insufficient, the explanation as useful only if it does not overshadow accountability, and the justification as weakening credibility.
A reflection goes further than all three: it analyses what went wrong and why, names the standard that applied, and says what has been learned and what has changed. The model you use matters less than the quality of that analysis; the course shows Gibbs for a regulatory statement or portfolio, Rolfe for a concise reflection, and Johns for deeper questions of values and ethics.
In a written reflection, keep the apology, give the context once, leave out the justification, and spend the words on the analysis and the change.
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.
Reflection, the three models and the other terms the course uses
- Reflection
- The structured process of looking back on an experience, analysing what went well or poorly, and planning how to improve. In a fitness to practise case it is read as evidence of insight and remediation.
- Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle (1988)
- Six stages: description, feelings, evaluation, analysis, conclusion and action plan. The course suggests it for a regulatory statement or a remediation portfolio.
- Rolfe’s model (2001)
- Three questions: What? So what? Now what? The course suggests it for a concise reflection in a CPD log.
- Johns’ model of structured reflection (1994)
- Questions about what you were trying to achieve, why you acted as you did, how it affected others, what standards should have informed you and what you will do differently.
- Apology
- An acknowledgement of regret and of the harm caused. Necessary, but not a reflection on its own.
- Explanation
- The context of a lapse, such as workload or fatigue. Useful, provided it does not replace accountability.
- Justification
- An attempt to defend or excuse the conduct. The course treats it as weak evidence that suggests limited insight.
- Reflective portfolio
- A structured package of evidence: an introduction, reflective statements linked to the code, CPD certificates, audit results, supervisor or mentor reports, anonymised feedback and an action plan.
- Insight
- Understanding what went wrong, why, and its effect on patients, colleagues and trust. A reflection is where insight is shown in writing.
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: Section 5 has a lesson on reflecting against the Medical Council’s Guide, and Section 3 a weak and a strong reflection on a doctor’s prescribing error.
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: Section 5 has a lesson on reflecting against the NMBI Code, and Section 3 a nurse’s reflection on backdated notes.
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 5 has a lesson on reflecting against the Dental Council’s Code, and Sections 3 and 7 a dentist’s reflection on consent.
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 5 has a lesson on reflecting against the PSI’s Code of Conduct, and Section 3 a pharmacist’s reflection on falsified records.
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: Section 5 has a lesson on reflecting against CORU’s codes, and Section 7 a social worker’s reflection on boundary drift.
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
What makes a reflective statement strong?
Honest admission of the lapse, an explicit reference to the standard in your regulator’s code, an account of its effect on the patient, colleagues and trust, and verifiable corrective action. A weak statement excuses, minimises or denies, or makes a vague promise. Section 3 sets five weak and strong statements side by side so you can see the difference sentence by sentence.
Which reflective model should I use?
The course covers three and says the model matters less than the quality of the analysis. Gibbs’ six-stage cycle suits a regulatory statement or a portfolio; Rolfe’s What? So what? Now what? suits a concise reflection; Johns’ prompts suit deeper questions of values and ethics. Section 4 works an example through each.
Is an apology a reflection?
No. An apology expresses regret and is necessary; a reflection analyses what went wrong and why, names the standard, and shows what has changed. The Medical Council’s Guidance on Sanctions counts an apology to anyone affected at an early stage, and NMBI lists evidence of an apology among mitigating factors, but neither treats an apology as the whole response. Section 6 covers the difference.
Should my reflection name my regulator’s code?
Yes. Naming the duty the conduct breached shows that you understand which standard applied and gives the reader something to test. Section 5 has a lesson on linking reflection to the codes of the Medical Council, NMBI, the PSI, the Dental Council and CORU. Quote your own code accurately, from its current edition.
What goes in a reflective portfolio?
An introduction stating its purpose, reflective statements linked to the code, certificates of relevant CPD, audit results, supervisor or mentor reports, anonymised patient or colleague feedback, and an action plan. Section 8 covers the structure, the evidence to include and the weaknesses that undermine a portfolio, such as CPD unrelated to the lapse or no independent verification.
Can this course be used as evidence in my response?
It can be part of the evidence, but no course decides a complaint. The course gives you a dated certificate of 2 CPD hours and the structure for a reflection that names the standard, the effect and the change. What a committee reads is the reflection itself 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.
Courses that work alongside this one
Reflection is how insight is put in writing and how remediation is explained. These are the courses that pair with this one.
Insight for Fitness to Practise
What insight is, how the five regulators frame it, weak and strong demonstrations of insight, and how insight is shown in a portfolio and at a hearing.
Remediation for Fitness to Practise
What a regulator looks for in remediation, what a remediation portfolio contains, case studies across five professions, and remediation at a hearing.
Ensuring No Repeat of Misconduct or Mistake in Future Practice
Risk factors for a repeat, weak and strong assurances of non-repetition, and the evidence that change has been made and kept.
Fitness to Practise for Healthcare Professionals
What fitness to practise means to the five regulators, the concerns behind a case, weak and strong responses, and professionalism at a hearing.
Dealing with a Complaint or Investigation Professionally
Responding to a complaint, employer and regulatory investigations, records and evidence, and protecting your wellbeing while the matter is open.
Rebuilding Trust of Patients, Colleagues, the Public and the Regulator
How trust is lost, and how it is rebuilt with patients, the public, teams and the regulator: insight, remediation and future risk.
Documentation for Healthcare Professionals
Good clinical documentation, consent and capacity, handover records, digital records and data protection, and records during a complaint.
Reflection for Fitness to Practise
This course. Weak and strong reflective statements, three reflective models, the regulators’ codes, and the reflective portfolio.
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.