Ethics and Ethical Standards for Doctors for Doctors facing an Ahpra notification, complaint or allegation

The reasoning: which principles were engaged, where they conflicted, which prevailed and why, what the effect on the patient was, and what you would weigh differently now — with the section of Good medical practice you fell short of named by you, before the Board names it. The course’s six-part reflection (description, contributing factors, ethical lens, impact, learning, action planning) is the structure, and the ethical lens step is the one that carries the argument on an ethics matter.

Yes — before anything is written to Ahpra, the Medical Board, a panel, a tribunal, your employer or a health complaints body. Your medical defence organisation or indemnity insurer, your union or association, or a lawyer should read a response before it goes, and Good medical practice itself (3.2.11) asks you to consult colleagues and take advice. Nothing on this page is legal advice, and no course determines the outcome of a notification.

No provider is accredited by Ahpra or any National Board, and no course decides a matter. What the Board, a panel and a tribunal weigh is dated, targeted remediation with reflection that engages the standard — and this course works through the key domains of Good medical practice, so the connection is plain on the certificate and in your reflective account. Check the wording of any condition, undertaking or direction with your medical defence organisation or lawyer before you rely on it.

After an assessment or an investigation the Board may take no further action, caution you, accept an undertaking or impose conditions on your registration (section 178), refer you to a panel, or refer the most serious matters to a tribunal (section 193), which can reprimand, impose conditions, fine, suspend, cancel registration and disqualify (section 196). The course describes the process — assessment, investigation, outcome — and shows why doctors who show insight, take responsibility and engage in remediation are treated differently from those who deflect blame or repeat the behaviour.

Not Ahpra, in either case. In New South Wales the Medical Council of NSW and the Health Care Complaints Commission manage conduct, health and performance matters between them, and Ahpra does not investigate registered practitioners there. In Queensland every complaint goes first to the Office of the Health Ombudsman, which decides what it keeps and what it refers on to Ahpra and the Board. The letterhead tells you which body has your file, and the same response — the reasoning, the standard, the remediation — is what each of them reads for.

A patient with capacity is entitled to refuse, and the code requires the refusal to be respected: section 4.3.3 asks you to give patients adequate opportunity to question or refuse intervention and treatment. The investigation will ask whether the refusal was informed, whether capacity was considered, whether the reasons were explored and follow-up offered, and whether the record shows it — the course’s lesson on autonomy and informed refusal is written for exactly this notification.

When the law requires it — mandatory reporting under state or territory law, a notifiable condition under public health law, a court subpoena or a lawful request from a regulator — and when disclosure is necessary to prevent a serious risk to someone’s life or safety, including the duty to warn. Two things are then required: share only the relevant information, and document the reasoning. Disclosing more than was needed is a breach even where some disclosure was justified; the course covers the decision, the recipient and the record.

Decline unless the patient has consented or there is a legal or urgent safety reason. Section 4.10 of the code asks you to be responsive to relatives and carers with appropriate consent or where otherwise permitted — the qualifier is the whole obligation. Explain the position to the relative respectfully rather than simply refusing, and document the exchange. Disclosing without authority and refusing where the law required disclosure are both concerns.

This course is about the reasoning behind a decision and the ethical breaches a notification names; the Professionalism course is about conduct — communication, records, social media, scope and impairment as behaviour, measured against the conduct sections of the code. A notification that says a decision or a relationship was unethical usually starts here; one that describes how you behaved usually starts there. The two are often taken together.

The Medical Board sets its own continuing professional development registration standard, and targeted CPD in medical ethics, consent and shared decision-making is among the remediation the Board and the tribunals recognise. The certificate records the course, the 2 CPD hours and the date, which is what a CPD portfolio needs; how the hours count towards your requirement depends on your CPD home, so check its categories.

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 CPD record.