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

The reasoning: which obligations were engaged, where they conflicted, which prevailed and why, who you consulted and what you were told, and what you would weigh differently now — with the standard of the Psychology Board’s Code of conduct you fell short of named by you, before the Board names it. The course’s six steps (identify the issue, consider the principles, review the standards, explore the options, seek supervision, make and document a reasoned decision) are the structure for the decision, and the record of steps five and six is what the Board reads for; its reflection lesson then asks for an honest evaluation of your actions, the contributing factors and the alternative approaches.

Yes — before anything is written to Ahpra, the Psychology Board, a panel, a tribunal, your employer, a court or a health complaints body. Your indemnity insurer, the APS, the AAPi or your association, or a lawyer should read a response before it goes, and standard 8.11 of the Psychology Board’s Code of conduct says in terms that it is advisable to seek legal advice or advice from your professional indemnity insurer during an investigation. 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 covers what the Psychology Board’s Code of conduct sets standards for, from boundaries and dual relationships to confidentiality, consent and records, so the connection is plain on the certificate and in your reflective account. Check the wording of any condition, undertaking or direction with your indemnity insurer, the APS, the AAPi or your association or a lawyer before you rely on it.

After an assessment or an investigation the Psychology 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 psychologists 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 Psychology 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.

The course sets the test rather than a rule: weigh the severity of the risk, the immediacy of harm and the protective factors. Where risk is identified, protection from harm takes priority in high-risk situations, and you may need to develop a safety plan, involve support networks, refer to specialist or emergency services, or breach confidentiality where justified. Two requirements are often missed: the action must be proportionate, and it must be documented. Disclosing more than the risk required is its own failure, and the course covers the decision, the recipient and the record.

Yes, in more places than any other Australian health practitioner code. Standard 4.9 requires contemporaneous records of the factors demonstrating a reasonable belief that a dual relationship must continue; 4.10 requires you to consider and record why simultaneous services are appropriate for each client; 8.13 requires a record even for a token gift; 8.14 the same for non-monetary compensation. Documenting your reasoning is a standard, not a recommendation, and a response that can quote its own contemporaneous note is read as insight.

Not simply on request, and this is an ethical question rather than an administrative one. Standard 8.3 governs the integrity of assessment methods and techniques and has no equivalent in any other Australian code. Requests arrive from clients, lawyers, insurers and courts, and the answer depends on what is being asked for, by whom, and under what authority. Take advice before releasing anything, from your indemnity insurer and, where a court process is involved, a lawyer. The course’s lesson on third parties sets the rule — valid client consent, the purpose and scope defined, only relevant information disclosed — and its six-step framework is how to decide the request.

Take advice today, and understand that standard 4.5 on open disclosure does not wait for the matter to be fully understood. The common instinct is to establish the facts first and disclose once there is something definite to say; the interval that instinct creates is often what the notification is about. Your indemnity insurer will help you do it in a way that is open and also careful, and a disclosure made before the Board asks is dated evidence of candour.

Standard 10.1 covers teaching, supervising and assessing, and 10.3 covers provisional psychologists and registrars. A concern about a supervisee is often, on examination, a concern about the supervision — how often it occurred, what was reviewed, what was recorded, and whether the supervisee’s scope matched what they were doing. Take advice, because your position and theirs may not be the same, and the record of supervision is what answers it.

The Psychology Board’s Code of conduct, in effect since 1 December 2025 — the Board’s first regulatory code; before it, the Board applied the Australian Psychological Society’s Code of Ethics. Psychologists are not covered by the shared Code of conduct that twelve other professions use, and the numbering does not transfer: client records are standard 8.5 here, where the shared code has 8.3. Conduct is assessed against the standards in force when it occurred, so for anything spanning that date, which code applies is the first question.

This course is about the reasoning behind a decision and the ethical breaches a notification names — a dual relationship, a confidence, a consent, a record, a report, a decision made under conflicting obligations; the Professionalism course is about conduct — communication, records, disrespectful behaviour, social media and conduct during an investigation, measured against the conduct standards 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 Psychology Board of Australia sets its own continuing professional development registration standard, which standard 7.4 of the code requires you to be familiar with, and targeted CPD on the subject of a notification 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 the standard’s categories, so check them.

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.