Dietitians BoardTe Mana Matanga Matai Kai
NOVEMBER 2018
ACCREDITATION PROCESS FOR NEW ZEALAND DIETETIC EDUCATION
PROGRAMMES
Acknowledgements
The Dietitians Board is grateful for the assistance from other regulatory
and accrediting authorities in New Zealand, Australia and other countries
to develop the accreditation process.
In particular, the Board wishes to thank the Australian Dental Council for
permission to use their Guidelines for Accreditation of Education and Training
Programs (2017) as the basis of this document.
• Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics (USA)
• Australian Dental Council
• British Dietetic Association
• Dental Council of New Zealand
• Dietitians Association of Australia
• Health and Care Professions Council, United Kingdom
• International Confederation of Dietetic Associations
• Medical Council of New Zealand
• Midwifery Council of New Zealand
• New Zealand Chiropractic Board
• New Zealand Medical Radiation Technologists Board
• New Zealand Psychologists Board
• Nursing Council of New Zealand
• Optometry Council of Australia and New Zealand
• Optometrist & Dispensing Opticians Board of New Zealand
• Occupational Therapy Board of New Zealand
• Partnership for Dietetic Education & Practice, Canada
• Pharmacy Council of New Zealand
• Physiotherapy Board of New Zealand
›› 1ACCREDITATION PROCESS FOR NEW ZEALAND DIETETIC EDUCATION PROGRAMMES
Contents
1. Introduction ........................................................2
2. The Board’s approach to accreditation .............32.1 Underlying philosophy .......................................3
3. Overview of accreditation ..................................43.1. Accreditation and monitoring ............................43.2. Accreditation Standards.....................................43.3. Competency Standards......................................53.4. Accreditation Review Team ...............................53.5. Opportunity for comment by
education provider .............................................73.6. Decision making .................................................73.7. Cost recovery .....................................................7
4. Accreditation review outcomes ........................84.1. Types of accreditation review outcomes ..........84.2. Duration of accreditation ...................................94.3. Refusal of accreditation .....................................94.4. Revocation of accreditation ...............................94.5. Recommendations .............................................9
5. Accreditation process ......................................115.1. New programmes .............................................115.2. Existing programmes .......................................12
6. Accreditation review process ..........................156.1. Accreditation review submission ....................156.2. Preliminary Accreditation Review Team
teleconference .................................................15
6.3. Site visit .............................................................166.4. Accreditation Review Team report ..................18
7. Monitoring requirements for accredited programmes .....................................................19
7.1. Annual reporting process ................................197.2. Annual reporting cost recovery .......................197.3. Additional reporting .........................................197.4. Monitoring visit .................................................207.5. Reporting programme changes .......................207.6. Assessment of programme changes ..............217.7. Responses to concerns about an
accredited programme ....................................22
8. Conflict of interest ............................................23
9. Confidentiality ...................................................24
10. Complaints and appeals against decisions .....25
11. Complaints regarding accredited programmes .....................................................27
12. Evaluation of accreditation policies and procedures ................................................28
13. Definitions of accreditation process terms .....29
14. Contact information .........................................33
2 ›› New Zealand Dietitians Board
Introduction
‘Accreditation’ is the status granted by the Dietitians Board (the Board)
to dietetic education programmes that meet, and continue to meet, the
Board’s Accreditation Standards.
This document outlines the Accreditation Process (policies and procedures) for education
providers seeking accreditation of their dietetic education programme(s) with the Board. It provides
the framework for education providers to make an application for accreditation and to have their
accredited programme monitored. To facilitate communication, terms are defined in section 13.
The document should be used in conjunction with:
• Accreditation Standards for New Zealand Dietetic Education Programmes, and
• Guidelines for Accreditation of New Zealand Dietetic Education Programmes.
The document also assists assessors appointed to the Board’s Accreditation Review Team.
The current version of the Standards, Guidelines and materials referred to in this document must be
used. They are available from the Board’s website (http://www.dietitiansboard.org.nz) and the
education provider portal.
›› 3ACCREDITATION PROCESS FOR NEW ZEALAND DIETETIC EDUCATION PROGRAMMES
The Board’s approach to accreditation
2.1. Underlying philosophy2.1.1. The Board’s approach to accreditation is that of a ‘fitness for purpose’ model based on
outcomes defined in the Scope of Practice: Dietitian and the Professional Standards &
Competencies for Dietitians. To obtain registration as a dietitian, an individual must have a
prescribed dietetic qualification that demonstrates that she/he has moved beyond novice
and advanced beginner skill levels and is ‘competent’ in providing safe, effective and
professional dietetic care in a variety of settings as part of a flexible workforce.
2.1.2. In undertaking its accreditation function, the Board acknowledges the innovation and
diversity of teaching and learning approaches among dietetic education providers, and
recognises that this diversity can strengthen the New Zealand dietetic education system
and workforce, provided that each education provider meets the Accreditation Standards
and continually monitors and improves programme quality.
2.1.3. It is the responsibility of each education provider to demonstrate how its dietetic
education programme meets the Accreditation Standards. The Board does not prescribe
programme structures and detailed curricula, or any other approach to educational
delivery, other than that specified in the Accreditation Standards and Guidelines.
2.1.4. The accreditation process is conducted in a professional, positive, constructive manner
based on peer review. While its primary purpose is to determine whether or not Standards
are met, the process of accreditation also aims to foster quality improvement through
feedback from peer assessors. Conflict of interest and confidentiality are managed.
2.1.5. The Board’s accreditation process is regularly evaluated and modified based upon
previous experience, feedback from participants and stakeholders, external input such as
benchmarking with other accreditation systems, and related activities.
4 ›› New Zealand Dietitians Board
Overview of accreditation
3.1 Accreditation and monitoring3.1.1. The Board is required by Section 118(a) of the Health Practitioners Competence
Assurance Act 2003 (HPCA Act) to ‘prescribe the qualifications required for scopes of
practice within the profession, and, for that purpose, to accredit and monitor educational
institutions and degrees, courses of studies, or programmes’.
3.1.2. ‘Accreditation’ of a New Zealand dietetic education programme signifies that every
graduate with this qualification is ‘competent’ and fit to practise dietetics in New
Zealand, as defined in the Scope of Practice: Dietitian, Professional Standards &
Competencies for Dietitians, and Code of Ethics and Conduct for Dietitians.
3.1.3. Graduates of Board-accredited programmes (with a prescribed dietetic qualification) are
eligible for registration to practise as a dietitian in New Zealand. (Overseas-trained
dietitians may be eligible for registration in New Zealand based on Board policies for
Recognition of Overseas Dietetic Qualifications and Board Registration Examinations.)
3.2. Accreditation Standards3.2.1. The Board’s Accreditation Standards for New Zealand Dietetic Education
Programmes (the Accreditation Standards) are endorsed by the Board pursuant to the
HPCA Act. The Standards apply to all New Zealand dietetic education programmes that
are prescribed for registration as a dietitian in New Zealand from January 2020.
3.2.2. The Board has four mandatory Accreditation Standards:
1. Programme of Study Programme design, delivery and resourcing produces competent
graduates able to practise dietetics across the Scope of Practice.
2. Assessment Assessment is fair, valid, reliable and sufficient to evaluate
student competence across the Scope of Practice.
3. Quality Assurance Effective governance and quality assurance systems are in
place for the programme of study.
4. Public and Student Safety Public and student safety is assured.
3.2.3. Each Standard has a number of assessment Criteria that the Accreditation Review Team
uses to determine whether the education provider’s evidence clearly demonstrates
Standard achievement.
›› 5ACCREDITATION PROCESS FOR NEW ZEALAND DIETETIC EDUCATION PROGRAMMES
3.2.4. The Board’s Guidelines for Accreditation of New Zealand Dietetic Education Programmes (the Guidelines) outline Board expectations for interpreting the
Accreditation Standards.
3.2.5. All programmes are assessed against the same Accreditation Standards, although the
assessment may vary according to the circumstances of the provider. The current
Accreditation Standards, and Guidelines, are available from the Board’s website
(www.dietitiansboard.org.nz).
3.3. Competency Standards 3.3.1. The Scope of Practice: Dietitian, Professional Standards & Competencies for Dietitians,
and Code of Ethics and Conduct for Dietitians (available on the Board’s website) have
been developed in consultation with the dietetic profession and stakeholders.
3.3.2. Given the broad Scope of Practice, the Board expects graduates of accredited
programmes to be ‘competent’ in providing safe, effective and professional dietetic care
in at least three core dietetic practice contexts: public health nutrition, medical nutrition
therapy (includes prescribing and enteral and parenteral nutrition), and food service
systems management (competency standards 1.3-1.5). Competence in these areas
underpin dietetic knowledge, skills, reasoning, and judgement.
3.3.3. The Professional Standards & Competencies for Dietitians describe the minimum
competency standards and core competencies required for initial registration and
continuing practice as a dietitian in New Zealand. An education provider is expected to
develop and evaluate curricula that enable students to develop and achieve these
minimum competency standards.
3.3.4. The Code of Ethics and Conduct for Dietitians describes Board expectations for the ethical
and professional behaviour of dietitians. The Board expects all registered dietitians to
adhere to these standards and to equip dietetic students to do the same.
3.4. Accreditation Review Team 3.4.1. The Dietitians Board appoints an Accreditation Review Team (ART) (a Chair and members)
and delegates responsibility to this team for the assessment of a dietetic education
programme against the Accreditation Standards and Criteria. ART assessors work within
the policies, procedures and terms of reference set by the Board.
3.4.2. The ART has three key functions:
• Investigation – to review the education provider’s evidence and to collect additional
evidence, as necessary, in order to clarify and verify required evidence,
• Assessment – to determine whether available evidence sufficiently demonstrates
programme compliance with each Accreditation Standard and Criterion,
• Recommendations – to provide an overall recommendation to the Board on an
accreditation outcome (section 4.1), and to recommended programme quality
improvements.
6 ›› New Zealand Dietitians Board
3.4.3. The ART completes Board orientation, reviews evidence submitted by the education
provider, requests additional evidence/clarification, clarifies/verifies evidence during the
site visit, assesses available evidence against the Accreditation Standards, decides on an
accreditation review outcome, and writes a report to the Board with recommendations.
3.4.4. Each accreditation review is conducted by an expert group of assessors. The ART has a
balance of expertise to allow transparent assessment of the programme with sufficient
academic rigour.
3.4.5. When forming an ART, the Board ensures that there are ‘experts’ in: academic quality,
dietetic education (modern educational principles and competence assessment
practices), the three core dietetic practice contexts (public health nutrition, medical
nutrition therapy, food service systems management), New Zealand dietetic practice
(health care context), and accreditation assessment processes. Consideration is given to
ensuring adequate input into the assessment of the education provider’s response to the
principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
3.4.6. The ART typically has four members supported by the Board’s secretariat, although it may
be smaller or larger depending on the context of the assessment (i.e. full accreditation
assessment or limited assessment triggered by major change to the programme).
3.4.7. An ART must always include at least:
• two senior dietetic academics with in-depth understanding of modern educational
principles and competence assessment practices,
• a senior dietetic practitioner with significant practice and supervision experience in
New Zealand, and
• a professional experienced in conducting tertiary education accreditation
assessments.
3.4.8. ART members must be able to: work in a team, communicate effectively, be discreet and
commit the time necessary to contribute to all stages of the review. They should be
supportive of change and innovation that improves competence outcomes. In addition,
assessors are expected to support the concept of professional accreditation and
contribute directly to the growth and further development of the Board’s accreditation
process.
3.4.9. The Board appoints the ART Chair, who is an experienced and skilled assessor. The role of
the Chair is to lead the evaluation of the programme, which includes:
• chairing ART meetings/teleconferences;
• allocating assessment and writing tasks to ART members;
• leading (or delegating to another ART member) the questioning of interviewees;
• leading the writing of the report; and
• taking the lead in the formulation of the overall recommendation.
›› 7ACCREDITATION PROCESS FOR NEW ZEALAND DIETETIC EDUCATION PROGRAMMES
3.4.10. The role of the Board’s Secretariat is to:
• provide administrative support to the ART throughout the process;
• liaise with the education provider regarding the site visit to ensure appropriate
arrangements;
• advise the ART on the application and interpretation of the Accreditation Standards,
Guidelines and Process; and
• ensure that the review is conducted within the scope of the Board’s accreditation
function in a fair and consistent manner.
3.5. Opportunity for comment by education provider3.5.1. The education provider has an opportunity to review and comment on the factual
accuracy of the ART’s draft report before it is finalised for consideration by the Board. The
draft report does not include the ART’s accreditation review outcome recommendation.
3.6. Decision making3.6.1. The Board reviews the ART’s final report, including its recommendation, and makes the
final decision on the accreditation review outcome, usually within 6 weeks. The decision is
the sole responsibility of the Board. If there are issues in the report that require detailed
explanation, the ART Chair can participate in the Board’s discussion, but not participate in
the decision.
3.6.2. Once the Board decides on the accreditation review outcome and endorses the final
wording of the report, the report and decision is sent to the education provider.
3.6.3. An appeals process exists for a provider that wishes to challenge the Board’s
accreditation decision (section 10).
3.6.4. The Board publishes the accreditation review outcome on the Board’s website 1 month
after notifying the education provider of the Board’s accreditation decision.
3.7. Cost recovery3.7.1. The Board invoices the education provider on a cost-recovery basis for all expenses
related to its accreditation process (all accreditation reviews, including annual reporting).
This includes costs to the Board, its Secretariat, and the ART, and covers: administrative
and IT costs, documentation review, meetings, site visit, travel-related expenses,
preparation of reports, and review of reports.
3.7.2. Estimated costs for an accreditation review and annual reporting are available from the
Secretariat.
8 ›› New Zealand Dietitians Board
Accreditation review outcomes
4.1. Types of accreditation review outcomes4.1.1. Under the HPCA Act, the Board may grant accreditation review outcomes as set out in
Table 1. These outcomes apply to all programmes, whether new or existing.
(Additional guidance for determining whether a Standard is ‘met’, ‘substantially met’ or
‘not met’ is provided in the Glossary under ‘Accreditation Standards’.)
TABLE 1. Types of accreditation review outcomes
Accreditation The programme meets the Accreditation Standards.
Retention of accreditation is subject to ongoing
monitoring by the Board.
Accreditation with Conditions
The programme substantially meets the Accreditation
Standards, but the programme has a deficiency or
weakness in one or more Standards. The deficiency or
weakness is considered to be of such a nature that it
can be corrected within a reasonable period of time.
Evidence of meeting the conditions within the timeline
stipulated must be demonstrated to achieve
accreditation status (without conditions).
Revocation of Accreditation
The programme does not meet the Accreditation
Standards. Accreditation status can be revoked when:
• A programme is identified, at any time, as having a
serious deficiency or weakness in one or more of
the Accreditation Standard(s) that cannot be
corrected within a reasonable period of time.
• A programme with conditions fails to meet the
conditions within the defined period of time.
Refusal of Accreditation The programme does not meet the Accreditation
Standards. The programme has a serious deficiency or
weakness in one or more of the Accreditation
Standard(s) that cannot be corrected within a
reasonable period of time.
›› 9ACCREDITATION PROCESS FOR NEW ZEALAND DIETETIC EDUCATION PROGRAMMES
4.2. Duration of accreditation4.2.1. Accreditation (with or without conditions) can be granted for up to a maximum of FIVE
years.
4.3. Refusal of accreditation4.3.1. The Board advises the education provider of the reasons for its decision to refuse
accreditation of the programme.
4.3.2. Where a programme is refused re-accreditation, the provider is required to advise the
Board of the management of currently enrolled students, as outlined in section 4.4.
4.4. Revocation of accreditation 4.4.1. The Board advises the education provider that accreditation of the programme is to be
revoked, with reasons for the decision. For example, the Board believes that graduates
of a programme are unlikely to be competent to practise dietetics across the Scope of
Practice upon completion of the programme.
4.4.2. The education provider is required to advise the Board how it proposes to manage and
protect the interests of students who are currently enrolled in the programme.
4.4.3. The provider must undertake the following process for currently enrolled students:
• make arrangements with another education provider to transfer students into an
accredited programme, and
• ensure the alternative provider can satisfy the Board that it is able to incorporate
the extra students, that is has adequate academic staff, resources, facilities to
enable them to graduate under the aegis of the alternative accredited provider, so
these students are eligible to apply to the Board for registration, or
• allocate resources, engage contract staff, or do whatever else is necessary to enable
a ‘teach out’ of the programme within a short-term accreditation period, agreed by
the Board (usually only appropriate where there is 12 months or less for the student
cohort to complete the programme) or
• take such other steps, agreed by the Board, to protect the interests of students.
4.4.4. An appeals process exists for a provider that wishes to challenge a decision of the
Board (section 10).
10 ›› New Zealand Dietitians Board
4.5. Recommendations 4.5.1. In addition to determining whether a programme should be accredited – with or without
conditions, the accreditation process (and ART report) also allows for the inclusion of
quality improvement recommendations.
4.5.2. A recommendation is made where the ART identifies an area of the programme that
meets the Standard(s), but notes an opportunity exists to further improve programme
quality.
4.5.3. Recommendations are intended to support programme development. Unlike conditions,
the education provider is not required to act on them. However, acting on the
recommendations is encouraged as a way of demonstrating a commitment to quality
improvement.
›› 11ACCREDITATION PROCESS FOR NEW ZEALAND DIETETIC EDUCATION PROGRAMMES
Accreditation process
5.1. New programmes 5.1.1. The process for accrediting a new programme begins with an education provider
contacting the Board to express interest in having their dietetic programme accredited.
The provider is advised of the process and indicative timelines, as outlined in Figure 1.
5.1.2. An education provider contemplating accreditation of a new programme should consult
the Board at an early stage (e.g. 2 years before enrolling students). This contact assists in
developing a mutual understanding of the process and its requirements. Although the
Board proceeds as expeditiously as possible with the accreditation process, accreditation
of a new programme usually takes some time.
5.1.3. If the provider chooses to proceed, a formal Notice of Intent to seek accreditation of a
dietetic education programme is lodged with the Board at least 18 months before
enrolling students. The Notice allows the Board to gain an overview of the proposed
programme and to consider the implications for an accreditation process. This may lead
to further discussion on particular matters. The provider should expect a response within
4 to 6 weeks.
The Notice must include the following information, using the template provided:
• the education provider
• the education provider’s regulatory status with Committee on University Academic
Programmes (CUAP)
• any other parties involved in joint delivery of the programme
• the qualification(s) to be awarded
• the proposed date of commencement of the programme
• normal full-time duration of the programme
• location(s) of delivery
• modes of delivery and participation
• nature and location of practical placements (minimum of 3 core dietetic practice
contexts)
• entry pathways and admission requirements
• exit pathways
• proposed enrolments
• formal endorsement/approval of the programme by the education provider’s peak
academic body
• a business plan demonstrating assurance of programme resourcing
• any other relevant information (The Board may request supplementary information.)
During this time, the provider should review the Accreditation Standards and Guidelines
and undertake a process of self-assessment to develop the programme.
12 ›› New Zealand Dietitians Board
5.1.4. If the Board is satisfied with the Notice of Intent, the Board contacts the education
provider to schedule dates for the accreditation review submission and site visit.
5.1.5. The detailed accreditation review submission is required at least 12 months before
proposed student enrolment and at least 3 months before the site visit. The site visit
normally occurs 9 to 12 months prior to proposed student enrolment.
5.1.6. The accreditation review process proceeds, in consultation with the provider as needed,
as outlined in Figure 1.
5.1.7. If the education provider wishes to make public announcements about a proposed new
programme (such as in promotional literature or course information on websites), then it
must consult with the Board regarding any reference to the Board and the accreditation
process before any public announcement is made.
5.2. Existing programmes5.2.1. An existing programme must be re-accredited before its accreditation expires.
5.2.2. The re-accreditation process begins when the Board contacts the education provider,
12 to 18 months before accreditation expires, to schedule dates for the accreditation review submission and site visit.
5.2.3. The detailed accreditation review submission is required at least 7 months before
accreditation expires (and the next student cohort is enrolled) and at least 2 to 3 months
before the site visit. The site visit normally occurs 5 to 12 months before accreditation
expires.
5.2.4. The accreditation review process proceeds, in consultation with the provider as needed,
as outlined in Figure 2.
›› 13
Board considers final ART Report and makes Accreditation Decision
Education provider contacts Board to discuss intentions at least 2 years
before enrolling students
Education provider lodges Accreditation Review Submission at least one year before enrolling students
Education provider submits ART requested information
ART reviews submission
Board schedules dates for Accreditation Review submission and site visit
Board reviews Notice of Intent
Board appoints Accreditation Review Team (ART)
ART drafts ART Report within 6 weeks of site visit
Education provider provides comment on factual errors in draft ART Report
within 2 weeks of receipt
Education provider informed of Accreditation Decision
Education provider does not proceed
Education provider does not proceed
Education provider submits Notice of Intent at least 18 months before
enrolling students
Secretariat plans Site Visit for ART with education provider
Site Visit occurs at least 9 months before enrolling students
Education provider starts
appeals process
Education provider accepts
decision
Figure 1: Accreditation process for new
programmes
14 ›› New Zealand Dietitians Board
Board considers final ART Report and makes Accreditation Decision
Board schedules dates for
Accreditation Review submission
and site visit at least 12 months
before accreditation expires
Education provider submits ART requested information
ART reviews submission
Board appoints Accreditation Review Team (ART)
ART drafts ART Report within 4-6 weeks of site visit
Education provider provides comment on factual errors in draft ART Report
within 2 weeks of receipt
Education provider informed of Accreditation Decision
Education provider lodges Accreditation Review Submission at least 7 months
before accreditation expires
Secretariat plans Site Visit for ART with education provider
Site Visit occurs at least 5 months before accreditation expires
Education provider starts
appeals process
Education provider accepts
decision
Figure 2: Accreditation process for existing programmes
›› 15ACCREDITATION PROCESS FOR NEW ZEALAND DIETETIC EDUCATION PROGRAMMES
Accreditation review process
6.1. Accreditation review submission6.1.1. The Board contacts the education provider to schedule dates for the accreditation review
submission and site visit [scheduling details for new programmes (section 5.1) and
existing programmes (section 5.2) noted previously].
6.1.2. The accreditation review submission is required at least 2.5-3 months before the site visit.
6.1.3. The education provider’s detailed submission must provide evidence and information to
demonstrate compliance with the Accreditation Standards for New Zealand Dietetic
Education Programmes.
6.1.4. The Guidelines for Accreditation of New Zealand Dietetic Education Programmes
describes Board expectations, core evidence requirements, and additional information
that could be considered for demonstrating compliance with the Accreditation Standards
and Criteria.
6.1.5. The Board is mindful of the need to keep the administrative burden of accreditation to a
reasonable minimum. Therefore, the Board has approved a list of ‘core evidence’
requirements which define the minimum documentation that must be included in an
accreditation review submission. Some documents can be used to provide core evidence
for multiple Accreditation Standards.
6.1.6. The Board encourages the provider to submit documentation in its original format and not
to spend time unnecessarily reformatting it for Board purposes. This can include
documentation that has been prepared for other purposes (e.g. a CUAP assessment),
provided that the information accurately describes the proposed programme.
6.1.7. A provider can include additional evidence and information to support their submission. A
list of possible items is included in the Guidelines for guidance only.
6.1.8. All submissions are made through the education provider portal (a secure online
platform). The education provider is required to upload evidence via the education
provider portal to demonstrate compliance with each Accreditation Standard and
Criterion. Hard copies are not required, unless specifically requested.
6.1.9. Supplementary information or clarification of information may be requested at any time.
6.2. Preliminary Accreditation Review Team teleconference6.2.1. When the education provider lodges its accreditation review submission, the Secretariat
notifies the ART that the submission is ready for consideration.
6.2.2. The Secretariat convenes a teleconference 6-8 weeks before the site visit. The purpose of
the meeting is for the ART to:
• consider the accreditation review submission,
• decide on required additional information or clarification of information, and
• identify the meetings and site visit(s) that must be included in the review.
16 ›› New Zealand Dietitians Board
6.2.3. The Secretariat advises the education provider of required information, meetings and
sites/facilities for the ART to view during their visit.
6.2.4. The education provider develops the ART’s site visit schedule in consultation with the
Secretariat (section 6.3).
6.2.5. The provider submits its final information, including site visit schedule, at least 4 weeks
before the ART’s site visit.
6.3. Site visit6.3.1. An accreditation review normally includes a 2-day structured visit by the ART to the
education provider to verify evidence in the provider’s submission and to clarify matters
raised during the review of the programme. A site visit may be longer for a multi-campus
provider or shorter where an evaluation is made against a limited set of standards.
6.3.2. The Secretariat consults with the education provider and the ART Chair to finalise dates
for the site visit. Dates are usually finalised 4 to 6 months before the visit.
6.3.3. The education provider develops the ART’s site visit schedule in consultation with the
Secretariat (and the ART Chair), and submits it at least 4 weeks before the site visit.
6.3.4. The visit typically comprises a series of meetings with selected individuals and groups that
contribute to the governance, design, delivery and evaluation of the dietetics programme.
Additional meetings may be requested to address issues that arise during the visit. For
a new programme, the visit may be more extensive and is adapted according to
circumstances.
6.3.5. The site visit schedule should provide maximum opportunities for interactive discussions
with staff, the external advisory committee, workplace training supervisors and high-
stakes competence assessors, students and recent graduates, employers of recent
graduates (all 3 core dietetic practice contexts) and other stakeholders (e.g. professional
bodies) to enable them to present their views and for the ART to verify statements
through triangulation. Contributors based in other cities may participate via
videoconference. The ART should view relevant facilities and, where relevant, students
working in various dietetic settings. There is also a need to allow adequate time during the
visit for confidential ART discussions, review and reflection.
6.3.6. An indicative schedule for a site visit is given in Table 2 (guidance only). Each schedule
varies depending on practical matters such as the geographical location of facilities/
meeting spaces, availability of persons for interview, and issues identified by the ART from
its review of the accreditation submission.
6.3.7. There is a need to maintain a professional perspective throughout the process in order to
deliver objective, unbiased, defensible and fair outcomes. Therefore, ART members are
required to limit their interactions with staff and stakeholders to issues relating to the
accreditation review assessment.
›› 17ACCREDITATION PROCESS FOR NEW ZEALAND DIETETIC EDUCATION PROGRAMMES
6.3.8. Interviewees are encouraged to give free and frank answers to questions from ART
members. For this reason, staff cannot be interviewed in the same session as their line
manager or with another staff member with whom there is a reporting relationship, for
example a programme director cannot be interviewed in the same session with a faculty
dean or head of department. Also, students cannot be interviewed while staff are present.
6.3.9. To maintain confidentiality and encourage free and frank responses, all interview sessions
are held pursuant to ‘Chatham House’ rules – interviewees are not identified in reports or
discussions outside of their interview(s) (https://www.chathamhouse.org/chatham-
house-rule).
6.3.10. At the conclusion of the site visit, the ART meets with the education provider’s Head of
School/Department and Director/Coordinator of the programme. The ART Chair thanks the
provider and reports preliminary findings.
TABLE 2. Indicative schedule for a site visit
DAY ONE
Session Time Activity (*closed session for ART discussion)
1.0 9:45 am ART arrive and set up* (morning tea)
1.1 10:00 am Senior Executive (Pro Vice-Chancellor- academic & research)
1.2 10:30 am Head of School/Department hosting the dietetic education
programme
1.3 11:00 am Director/Coordinator of the dietetic education programme
1.4 11:30 am Leaders Course coordinators (course/paper coordinators,
lead expert in each core dietetic practice context)
12:15 pm Lunch*
1.5 1:00 pm Tour of facilities, including practical placement facilities
(observe students in action), teaching spaces, research
laboratories, library
1.6 2:00 pm Workplace training supervisors / competence assessors in
medical nutrition therapy
1.7 2:30 pm Workplace training supervisors / competence assessors in food
service systems management
1.8 3:00 pm Workplace training supervisors / competence assessors in
public health nutrition
3:30 pm Afternoon tea*
1.9 4:00 pm Academic staff (lecturer and above)
1.10 4:45 pm Professional staff (below lecturer status)
5:30 pm End
18 ›› New Zealand Dietitians Board
DAY TWO
Session Time Activity
2.1 8.30 am External Advisory Committee
2.2 9:00 am Current students
2.3 9:30 am Recent graduates
10:00 am Morning tea*
2.4 10:15 am Employers of recent graduates in medical nutrition therapy
context
2.5 10:45 am Employers of recent graduates in food service systems
management context
2.6 11:15 am Employers of recent graduates in public health nutrition context
2.7 11:45 am Call back/additional sessions as needed
12:30 pm Lunch*
2.8 1:00 pm ART meeting and report writing* (afternoon tea)
2.9 4:45 pm Head of School/Department &
Director/Coordinator of programme
5:00 pm End
6.4. Accreditation Review Team report6.4.1. The ART Report to the Board describes the ART’s investigation to clarify and verify
evidence, their assessment of the programme’s compliance with each Accreditation
Standard and Criterion, and their recommendations on: an accreditation review outcome
(Table 1), programme-specific conditions (if relevant) and recommendations.
6.4.2. The preparation of the ART report is a collaborative team effort with the approach to be
taken, decided by the ART. All members may contribute to the writing of the report.
Alternatively, the report may be prepared by the Chair and circulated to the ART for
comment. ART members chair any meetings that relate to their areas of report writing
responsibility and ensure adequate notes of these sessions are made.
6.4.3. The ART writes and agrees their draft report, usually within 4 to 6 weeks of the site visit. The
draft report (sent to the education provider) does not include the ART’s recommendation for
an accreditation review outcome or conditions (if relevant).
6.4.4. The education provider receives the draft report and comments on any errors of fact, usually
within 2 weeks of receipt (section 3.5).
6.4.5. The ART considers education provider comments, finalises their report (usually within 2
weeks of receipt of comments) and submits it to the Board. The final report includes a
recommendation on accreditation review outcome, as well as programme-specific
conditions (if relevant) and recommendations.
6.4.6. The Board considers this report to determine the accreditation review outcome (section 3.6).
›› 19ACCREDITATION PROCESS FOR NEW ZEALAND DIETETIC EDUCATION PROGRAMMES
Monitoring requirements for accredited programmes
7.1. Annual reporting process7.1.1. The Board monitors each accredited programme to determine whether it continues to
meet the Accreditation Standards, or if there are Standards/Criteria that the programme is
at risk of not meeting.
7.1.2. Regular collection of information helps to identify risks at an early stage so they can be
addressed. It also allows the Board to profile how a programme is tracking against the
Standards during its period of accreditation, which helps identify areas for focus during
future re-accreditation processes.
7.1.3. The Board requires an Annual Report from the education provider for each accredited
programme. The Board notifies the education provider of their reporting requirements at
least 3 months prior to the due date.
7.1.4. The education provider must use the online reporting template. Progress on relevant
conditions and recommendations from previous accreditation review reports must be
addressed and changes documented.
7.1.5. Details of any major changes, planned or unplanned, must be provided (section 7.5). It is
the education provider’s responsibility to notify the Board of any planned major changes
before they are implemented.
7.1.6. The ART Chair (or Board appointee) reviews the Annual Report and writes a brief Annual
Monitoring Report to the Board, usually within 4 weeks. This report includes a
recommendation on continuance of accreditation and, where relevant, conditions and/or
recommendations.
7.1.7. The Board considers this report to determine continuance of accreditation (section 3.6).
7.2. Annual reporting cost recovery7.2.1. The Board invoices the education provider on a cost-recovery basis for all expenses
related to the annual monitoring process. This includes costs to the Board, its
Secretariat, and the ART Chair/Board appointee, and covers: administrative and IT costs,
documentation review, meetings (if required), report preparation and Board review.
7.2.2. Estimated costs are available from the Secretariat.
7.3. Additional reporting7.3.1. Additional reports (separate from Annual Reports) may be required for a programme that
has a shortened period of accreditation (with or without conditions) or where there are
concerns in relation to the continuance of accreditation.
20 ›› New Zealand Dietitians Board
7.3.2. Any requirements for additional reporting accompany notification of the Board’s
accreditation-related decision (sections 3.6, 7.6, 7.7).
7.3.3. The Board invoices the education provider on a cost-recovery basis for all expenses
related to this accreditation process (section 3.7).
7.4. Monitoring visit7.4.1. The ART may undertake a formal ‘monitoring visit’ to ensure that the programme
continues to meet the Accreditation Standards and Criteria.
7.4.2. There may be instances where a programme meets the Accreditation Standards at the
time of the accreditation site visit, but a known future event or activity gives rise to
uncertainty over whether one or more Standard/Criterion continues to be met during the
period of accreditation. For example, an education provider is moving to new facilities
that could not be viewed by the ART at the time of the site visit, or a new programme
appears compliant on paper but has not yet graduated any students.
7.4.3. Any requirements for a monitoring visit accompany notification of the accreditation
decision (section 3.6).
7.4.4. The Board invoices the education provider on a cost-recovery basis for all expenses
related to this accreditation process (section 3.7).
7.5. Reporting programme changes 7.5.1. The education provider must inform the Board of any major change to an accredited
programme, so impact on compliance with the Accreditation Standards can be assessed.
7.5.2. Except in the case of unforeseen contingencies, the Board expects to be informed
prospectively of proposed major changes, at least 6 to 12 months in advance of the
intended introduction, so that a process of review can be initiated and completed prior to
the proposed implementation.
7.5.3. A ‘major change’ to a programme is one that, prima facie, actually or potentially affects
compliance with any Accreditation Standard or Criterion. These include marked changes
(not gradual evolutionary adjustments) in the governance, design, delivery or evaluation
of a programme that may affect student learning opportunities, achievement of required
learning outcomes and/or competence assessments in the core dietetic practice contexts.
7.5.4. The Board regards the following as examples of major changes (this list is not exhaustive):
• any conditions imposed on the provider by an educational regulator (e.g. the Tertiary
Education Commission, CUAP)
• discontinuation of a course or part of a course, or change in the length of a course
• change in leadership (e.g. programme director/coordinator, course/paper coordinator,
lead expert in a core dietetic practice context)
• change in the staffing profile
›› 21ACCREDITATION PROCESS FOR NEW ZEALAND DIETETIC EDUCATION PROGRAMMES
• change in expected student learning outcomes and/or assessment that could impact
on compliance with the Professional Standards & Competencies for Dietitians
• change in a core dietetic practice context’s competence standards or assessment
matrix
• change in the mode(s) of delivery or participation (e.g. move to blocks of self-directed
or distance education)
• change in delivery partner or arrangements with a delivery partner (e.g. change
in practical placement arrangements that could impact on 800 hours within the
qualification, workplace training and/or high-stakes competence assessments in a core
dietetic practice context)
• change in arrangements for monitoring programme quality and graduate outcomes
• reduction in overall funding of the programme
• change to admission requirements that could present barriers to the achievement of
equity and learning outcomes
• increase in expected student numbers for the programme relative to available
resources, including capital, facilities and staff
7.5.5. Where there is any doubt about whether a proposed change represents a major change, it
must be discussed at the earliest opportunity with the Board for clarification.
7.6. Assessment of programme changes 7.6.1. The education provider submits a notice of intent, Annual Report or other report to the
Board, outlining the actual or proposed major change.
7.6.2. Based on the information provided, the Board determines whether the programme
change(s) may impact ongoing compliance with the Accreditation Standards and Criteria.
The Board may decide one of the following:
• the change can be incorporated within the current status and period of accreditation,
• the change has a potential impact that requires a limited accreditation review, with or
without a site visit, and assessment against designated Standards/Criteria,
• the change has a potential impact that requires a full accreditation review, including
site visit, or
• the change is of such a nature that it constitutes a proposal for a new programme,
therefore the education provider should seek initial accreditation of the programme.
7.6.3. The Board informs the education provider of its decision regarding the major change,
including any additional requirements or conditions the Board may impose on the provider
as part of the accreditation review.
7.6.4. For a limited accreditation review, the ART Chair, or the ART, or a Board appointee assesses
compliance against the Accreditation Standards and makes a recommendation on
continuance of accreditation and, where relevant, conditions and/or recommendations.
22 ›› New Zealand Dietitians Board
7.6.5. For a full accreditation review, the Board appoints an ART (section 3.4).
7.6.6. The Board considers the accreditation reviewer’s report to determine continuance of
accreditation (section 3.6). The provider is notified of the accreditation decision.
7.6.7. The Board invoices the education provider on a cost-recovery basis for all expenses
related to this accreditation process (section 3.7).
7.7. Responses to concerns about an accredited programme7.7.1. The Board may become concerned about the standing of a programme through concerns
expressed by stakeholders or other means, such that there may be cause to consider:
• imposing new or additional conditions on an existing accreditation,
• reducing the current period of accreditation, or
• revoking the programme’s accreditation.
7.7.2. The Board informs the education provider of the concerns and the grounds on which
they are based. The provider has an opportunity to respond.
7.7.3. The Board manages concerns on a case-by-case basis, having regard to the nature of the
issues raised. If required, the Board sets up a process to investigate the concerns before
deciding whether intervention is required.
7.7.4. The Board informs the education provider of its decision, including any additional
accreditation review requirements or conditions the Board may impose on the provider.
›› 23ACCREDITATION PROCESS FOR NEW ZEALAND DIETETIC EDUCATION PROGRAMMES
Conflict of interest
8.1.1. The education provider is given an opportunity to comment on the proposed membership
of an ART (or Review Panel) and may query the ART (or Review Panel) composition where
the provider believes a proposed member has a bias or conflict of interest that could cast
doubt on their capacity to objectively evaluate a programme.
8.1.2. The Board only considers objections to proposed ART members where the provider
produces evidence of bias or conflict of interest. Where such claims are substantiated, the
Board revises the composition of an ART.
8.1.3. Academics from other institutions may be appointed to an ART. This, in itself, is not viewed
by the Board as a conflict of interest.
8.1.4. Actual or potential conflicts of interest that may arise for the Board during the
accreditation process are managed according to the Board’s Conflict of Interest Policy.
24 ›› New Zealand Dietitians Board
Confidentiality
9.1.1. The accreditation process is confidential to the participants. In order to undertake their
accreditation role, the Board requires detailed information from the education provider.
This typically includes sensitive or commercial-in-confidence information such as plans,
budgets, appraisals of strengths and weaknesses and other confidential information. The
Board requires Board members and staff and ART members to sign a non-disclosure
agreement, which includes keeping confidential all education provider material provided
to the Board.
9.1.2. Information collected is used only for the purpose for which it is obtained.
9.1.3. Board decisions on accreditation review outcomes are available to the public. If the
decision is under appeal, then that fact is noted.
›› 25ACCREDITATION PROCESS FOR NEW ZEALAND DIETETIC EDUCATION PROGRAMMES
Complaints and appeals against decisions
10.1.1. In the event of a grievance about an accreditation process or outcome, an informal
resolution is sought if practicable.
10.1.2. In most instances, queries or concerns arising out of accreditation processes may be
resolved by discussing the matter with the Registrar, with or without the Board Chair’s
involvement. This is the most convenient, efficient, and cost neutral method of conflict
resolution.
10.1.3. The ART’s draft report is sent to the education provider to check for errors of fact. It is
possible, but unlikely, that a dispute may arise over the facts that then may lead to a
dispute or appeal over the Board’s decision.
10.1.4. The education provider is able to seek independent review of ART recommendations and
Board decisions concerning accreditation of a dietetic education programme at two
stages:
• Within one month of receipt by the education provider of a letter of notification that
the provider’s amendments to a draft ART report (addressing factual errors) have not
been accepted,
• Within one month of receipt by the education provider of a letter of notification
revoking/refusing accreditation, or imposing conditions upon accreditation.
10.1.5. Where there continues to be an unresolved disagreement, the education provider may
ask for an appeal to be considered by a Review Panel.
10.1.6. The Board is responsible for appointing the Review Panel. The education provider is given
an opportunity to comment on the proposed membership and to produce evidence that a
proposed member has a bias or conflict of interest that could cast doubt on their capacity
to objectively evaluate the programme (section 8).
10.1.7. A Review Panel typically has three members, and must include at least: two senior dietetic
academics with in-depth understanding of modern educational principles and
competence assessment practices, and a professional experienced in conducting tertiary
education accreditation assessments. While it is ideal for members of the Review Panel to
have recent experience in accrediting New Zealand dietetic education programmes,
members must not have been involved in the accreditation of the programme that is the
subject of the review. Each member must sign a non-disclosure agreement.
10.1.8. The Review Panel peer-reviews the education provider’s original accreditation review
submission and the ART’s documentation and recommendations. The Panel has the
discretion to interview ART members, programme staff, students and other relevant
stakeholders, and to inspect facilities, where it concludes that such actions are necessary
for it to make an informed judgement.
10.1.9. The Review Panel writes and agrees their draft report, usually within 6 to 8 weeks of Panel
establishment.
26 ›› New Zealand Dietitians Board
10.1.10. The education provider receives the draft report and is given the opportunity to comment
on any errors of fact, usually within 2 weeks of receipt (section 3.5).
10.1.11. The Review Panel considers education provider comments, finalises their report (usually
within 2 weeks of receipt of comments), and submits it to the Board. The final report
includes a recommendation on accreditation review outcome, as well as programme-
specific conditions (if relevant) and recommendations (if relevant).
10.1.12. The Board considers this report to make a final decision on the accreditation review
outcome and/or conditions (section 3.6). The provider is notified of the accreditation
decision.
10.1.13. The Board invoices the education provider on a cost-recovery basis for all expenses
related to this accreditation process (section 3.7).
10.1.14. A Board decision can be submitted to a judicial review if the education provider wishes to
challenge a matter of process.
›› 27ACCREDITATION PROCESS FOR NEW ZEALAND DIETETIC EDUCATION PROGRAMMES
Complaints regarding accredited programmes
11.1.1. The Board may receive a complaint about an accredited programme from a member of
the public or a stakeholder. The process for managing complaints is outlined here.
11.1.2. It is expected that, in the first instance, the complainant notifies the education provider
about any concerns prior to contacting the Board. The Board may wish to review
documentation related to the provider’s review of the complaint.
11.1.3. The Board only considers complaints pertaining to accreditation matters in writing. The
complaint should be addressed to the Registrar ‘in confidence’.
11.1.4. The Board Chair, Registrar and any other necessary person(s) or organisation(s) discuss
the complaint to agree on a course of action. It may raise sufficient concern about an
accredited programme to warrant further investigation (section 7.7).
11.1.5. Should the course of action resolve the matter, or find the complaint unsustainable, the
matter is deemed resolved and all parties to the complaint notified.
11.1.6. An Independent Complaints Panel (ICP) hearing may be requested in situations where
the complainant does not accept the Board’s decision. The cost of the ICP review must be
met by the complainant.
11.1.7. The ICP members are nominated by the Board and agreed by the complainant. It must
include three people: two of whom are external to the profession and none of whom have
been involved with the original complaint.
11.1.8. The ICP reviews the complaint and relevant documentation to make an informed
judgement about an appropriate course of action. The ICP writes a draft report, usually
within 6 to 8 weeks of Panel establishment.
11.1.9. The complainant receives the draft report and is given an opportunity to comment on any
errors of fact, usually within 2 weeks of receipt.
11.1.10. The ICP considers complainant comments, finalises their report (usually within 2 weeks of
receipt of comments), and submits it to the Board.
11.1.11. The Board considers this report to make a final decision on the complaint. The
complainant is notified of the decision and the cost of the ICP process.
11.1.12. A Board decision can be submitted to a judicial review if a complainant wishes to
challenge a matter of process.
28 ›› New Zealand Dietitians Board
Evaluation of accreditation policies and procedures
12.1.1 The Board is committed to continuous quality improvement of its policies and procedures
for accrediting dietetic education programmes. Therefore, the Board invites written
comments from individual education providers, ART members and any other interested
parties on how its policies and procedures could be improved.
12.1.2. Comments are presented to the Board and taken into consideration when refining
accreditation policies and procedures for future use.
›› 29ACCREDITATION PROCESS FOR NEW ZEALAND DIETETIC EDUCATION PROGRAMMES
Definitions of accreditation process terms
Accreditation: ‘Accreditation’ is the status granted by the Dietitians Board to dietetic education
programmes that meet, and continue to meet, the Board’s Accreditation Standards and Criteria.
Accreditation review: The accreditation review process evaluates whether an education provider’s
dietetic education programme meets, and continues to meet, the Accreditation Standards and
Criteria.
Accreditation review outcome/Accreditation status: The Dietitians Board decides the outcome
from a programme’s accreditation review. Four outcomes are possible (Table 1 repeated):
Accreditation The programme meets the Accreditation Standards.
Retention of accreditation status is subject to ongoing
monitoring by the Board.
Accreditation with Conditions
The programme substantially meets the Accreditation
Standards, but the programme has a deficiency or
weakness in one or more Standards. The deficiency or
weakness is considered to be of such a nature that it
can be corrected within a reasonable period of time.
Evidence of meeting the conditions within the timeline
stipulated must be demonstrated to achieve
accreditation status (without conditions).
Revocation of Accreditation
The programme does not meet the Accreditation
Standards. Accreditation status can be revoked when:
• A programme is identified, at any time, as having a
serious deficiency or weakness in one or more of the
Accreditation Standard(s) that cannot be corrected
within a reasonable period of time.
• A programme with conditions fails to meet the
conditions within the defined period of time.
Refusal of Accreditation The programme does not meet the Accreditation
Standards. The programme has a serious deficiency or
weakness in one or more of the Accreditation
Standard(s) that cannot be corrected within a
reasonable period of time.
Accreditation review submission: This is the detailed application, submitted by an education
provider to the Dietitians Board, that the Accreditation Review Team assesses to determine
compliance against the Accreditation Standards.
30 ›› New Zealand Dietitians Board
Accreditation Review Team (ART): This team, appointed by the Board, is responsible for the
assessment of an education provider’s accreditation review submission against the Accreditation
Standards and Criteria. Their report to the Board describes their investigation to clarify and verify
evidence, their assessment of the programme’s compliance with each Accreditation Standard and
Criterion, and their recommendations on an accreditation review outcome, as well as programme-
specific conditions (if relevant) and recommendations. ART assessors work within the policies,
procedures and terms of reference set by the Board.
Accreditation Standards: The Board’s Accreditation Standards (includes Criteria) are documented
in the Accreditation Standards for New Zealand Dietetic Education Programmes. Additional
information on Board expectations is provided in the Guidelines for Accreditation of New Zealand
Dietetic Education Programmes.
An Accreditation Standard is:
Met: When the programme meets the minimum requirements of the
Standard and its Criteria.
Not met: When the programme does not meet the minimum requirements
of the Standard and its Criteria, and the arrangements planned or
currently in place for the programme:
1. Are inadequate for students to meet Competency Standards
and to demonstrate competence in each core dietetic practice
context (Scope of Practice); and/or
2. Call into question the education provider’s capacity to resource
or administer the programme; and/or
3. Will have, or are having, significant adverse effects on student
welfare.
Substantially met: When the programme does not fully meet the minimum
requirements of the Standard and its Criteria, but these two criteria
are satisfied:
1. The plans and/or arrangements in place that are applicable to
the Standard must not adversely affect: student welfare, the
capacity of the education provider to deliver the programme,
the capacity of students to achieve required learning outcomes
(Professional Standards & Competencies for Dietitians) or to
demonstrate competence in each core dietetic practice context
(Scope of Practice); and
2. There must be a reasonable expectation that the programme
will be able to meet the Accreditation Standard in full within a
defined timeframe that does not pose an unacceptable risk.
›› 31ACCREDITATION PROCESS FOR NEW ZEALAND DIETETIC EDUCATION PROGRAMMES
Board: The Dietitians Board is one of 16 regulatory authorities established under the Health
Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 (HPCA Act). The HPCA Act provides frameworks for
the regulation of various health professions, the principle purpose of the Act being to protect the
health and safety of members of the public. Board members are appointed by, and are responsible
to, the Minister of Health.
Competence: Competence is an individual’s ability to fulfil the dietetic role safely and effectively
without assistance. A ‘competent’ practitioner practises safely (does no harm, causes no adverse
effects) and effectively (achieves a desired result) in a range of settings and in situations of varying
levels of complexity. The Board expects every graduate of an accredited dietetic programme to be
‘competent’ (beyond advanced beginner) in providing safe, effective and professional dietetic care
(without assistance) in at least three core dietetic practice contexts: public health nutrition, medical
nutrition therapy (includes prescribing and enteral and parenteral nutrition), and food service
systems management (competency standards 1.3-1.5). Competence in these areas underpin
dietetic knowledge, skills, reasoning and judgement. (‘Competent’ is defined in the Guidelines for
Accreditation of New Zealand Dietetic Education Programmes.)
Competency Standards: Board Competency Standards are documented in the Professional
Standards & Competencies for Dietitians. Additional information on Board expectations is provided
in the Scope of Practice: Dietitian and Code of Ethics and Conduct for Dietitians.
Compliance: The Board undertakes its compliance function under the HPCA Act when it assesses
whether a dietetic education programme meets the Board’s Accreditation Standards.
Conditions: The Board imposes conditions on a programme when an Accreditation Standard is
substantially met and full compliance with the Standard can be achieved within a reasonable
timeframe (a due date is set).
CUAP: Committee on University Academic Programmes
Dietetics: The discipline of dietetics is based on critical evaluation of scientific evidence about
food and nutrition and its effects on health, and translation of this evidence into practical strategies
to support optimal nutrition, health and well-being across the lifespan. Dietetics draws on a wide
range of competencies to promote and protect public health, direct and deliver medical nutrition
therapy services, and manage food and health systems.
Dietitian: Dietitians are qualified health professionals who are regulated by law (HPCA Act). Only
those practitioners registered in New Zealand and holding a current Dietitians Board Annual
Practising Certificate can practise or use the title ‘Dietitian’ in New Zealand. Dietitians work in
partnership with individuals, whanau, communities and populations, in states of health and disease,
to support optimal health and well-being across the lifespan.
Education provider: The New Zealand university, or similar tertiary education institution, that can
award a postgraduate dietetic qualification. The education provider seeks Board accreditation of its
dietetic education programme. Each accredited programme is monitored annually to ensure
ongoing compliance with the Accreditation Standards.
HPCA Act: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003.
32 ›› New Zealand Dietitians Board
Independent Complaints Panel (ICP): A complainant, who does not accept the Board’s decision
regarding their complaint, may request an Independent Complaints Panel (ICP) hearing to review
their complaint and the Board’s decision.
Quality improvement: While the primary purpose of an accreditation review is to determine
whether or not Accreditation Standards and Criteria are met, peer assessors may offer constructive
feedback, in the form of recommendations, to foster continuous quality improvement of the
programme.
Re-accreditation: A previously accredited dietetics education programme must re-apply for
accreditation before their period of accreditation expires; this process is called ‘re-accreditation’.
Recommendation: A recommendation is an action, or a course of actions, that the education
provider should consider to improve the quality of programme delivery and/or outcomes.
Recommendations may highlight areas of potential future risk to a programme that can be
addressed through the action(s) recommended. The education provider may seek to achieve the
proposed quality improvements through a course of action that differs from what is recommended.
Inaction or lack of action regarding a recommendation could pose risks to a programme’s future
compliance with the Standards, particularly where a recommendation highlights a potential risk to a
programme.
Review Panel: An education provider, who does not accept the Board’s decision regarding their
accreditation review outcome, may request for a Review Panel to review their original submission
and the Accreditation Review Team’s documentation and recommendations.
Senior dietetic academic: This person has usually achieved Professor or Associate Professor
status at a recognised university. They are a recognised ‘expert’ in dietetic education and their field
of dietetic practice-based research. They are registered as a dietitian in their country of residence
and hold a current practising certificate. (‘Expert’ is defined in the Guidelines for Accreditation of
New Zealand Dietetic Education Programmes.)
Senior dietetic practitioner: This dietitian (New Zealand-registered with a current Annual
Practising Certificate) is a recognised ‘expert’ in their field of dietetic practice within New Zealand.
Stakeholder: A stakeholder is a person, group or organisation with an interest or concern in
something.
Contact information
For further information please contact the Dietitians Board.
Dietitians BoardLevel 5, 22 Willeston Street
Wellington 6011
New Zealand
Postal AddressPO Box 9644
Wellington 6141
New Zealand
Telephone +64 4 474 0746
DIETITIANS BOARD
EMAIL I [email protected] I [email protected]
COURIER/PHYSICAL ADDRESS I LEVEL 5, 22 WILLESTON STREET I WELLINGTON 6011 I NEW ZEALAND
MAILING ADDRESS I THE REGISTRAR I DIETITIANS BOARD I PO BOX 9644 I WELLINGTON 6141 I NEW ZEALAND
TEL I +64 4 474 0746
WEBSITE I www.dietitiansboard.org.nz