Dietitians Board · The Board’s approach to accreditation 2.1. Underlying philosophy 2.1.1. The Board’s approach to accreditation is that of a ‘fitness for purpose’ model

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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).


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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


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).


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.


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).



7.5. 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


• 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.


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.



7.7. 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.


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.


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.


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.


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.



10.1.14. A Board decision can be submitted to a judicial review if the education provider wishes to

challenge a matter of process.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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

[email protected]

[email protected]

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

Documents

Dietitians Board · The Board’s approach to accreditation 2.1. Underlying philosophy 2.1.1. The Board’s approach to accreditation is that of a ‘fitness for purpose’ model