Submissions of CPD returns for 2024/25

For the CPD year ending on 31 March 2025, 1,684, annual returns were submitted by FPH members. This is slightly more than previous year (1,603).

Breakdown of submission by regions

For this annual report, we have excluded members who are based outside the UK, reflecting the current understanding that they are generally exempt from these requirements.  We are currently reviewing the relevant requirements to ensure our data remains accurate for future reporting.

Breakdown of submissions by membership grades and gender

Chart of submissions received month 

Summary of CPD submissions in 2024-25

*02/10/2025 – number of received submissions is 1710, which means 26 people have submitted after receiving a reminder of non-submission.

Summary of CPD submissions in 2023-24

Non-Submitters

As per the new CPD policy, members who fail to submit an annual return will receive a letter from the CPD Director reminding them of the requirement to submit an annual CPD return, unless exempt from CPD.In 2025 there were 56 non-submitters. (94 non submitters in 2024)

Following the new CPD policy, members who fail to submit an annual CPD return for a second year will receive a letter from the Registrar inviting them to discuss the reasons for their non-submission. Members who subsequently fail to make contact within three months will receive a second letter from the Registrar informing them that their name will be submitted to the FPH Board for removal of membership under Standing Order 15. The letter will also inform the member they must discuss this with their line manager and professional appraiser. A letter will be sent to the member’s responsible officer informing them that the member is not in good standing with the FPH and is pending removal of membership. 

There are five members who haven't submitted CPD return for 2 consecutive years. Out of those 5 members, 3 are associates with CPD, 1 Practitioner and 1 fellow.

Annual review

The annual review process started in May 2025 and 129 (119 last year) submissions were randomly selected by the system. This meant that each of the 14 CPD reviewers had 9 or 10 reviews to complete, which was 1 or 2 more than last year.  

Overall, the quality of submissions from members reviewed continues to be strong with the vast majority of submitted reflective notes being of good or fair quality - which continues the trend over the last three years inclusive. Furthermore, the comments and guidance fed back to the members by our CPD advisers was of a much higher quality and more personalised feedback. I pleased that the CPD advisers have continued to implement advice following training and internal standardisation to reduce Inter-adviser variation.

Of the 129 submissions randomly selected for review by the committee (slightly more than the 119 in the preceding year) 31/129 were deemed to be of poor enough quality that advisers recommended that these members familiarise themselves with the latest guidance, support and seek support from regional CPD advisers. This is an increase from the previous year (18% now increasing to 24%). The expectation is for members receiving these comments to take the initiative and follow-up on the advice and seek further support in order to improve the quality of their reflective notes and submissions. As in the CPD policy, the CPD advisers are not expected to individually follow-up these individuals that have received a poor rating. Regarding the members that submitted poor reflective notes, the average number of submissions was just over four reflective notes - which is slightly higher than the number of reflective notes submitted by members who had good quality reflective notes. This may indicate an overcompensation by members who may recognise their reflective notes may be suboptimal.

Common feedback to members that submitted poor reflective notes included the fact that they were succinct, lacking detail, not demonstrating new learning and being very descriptive rather than analytical. They often lacked deeper analysis of learning or its impact on practice. Some submissions were very generic and some had obviously been cut and pasted from other sources.

Nevertheless, despite an increase in submissions rated poor - there was a substantial increase in submissions deemed to be of good/high quality (from 53% to 60% this year), with a slight drop in submissions deemed to be of fair/borderline quality (29% to 16%). This may indicate that members are better able to submit good quality reflective notes when they apply themselves – which could be tter training but more likely more experience and discussion with colleagues and appraisers.

Although the policy asks members to submit between three and six reflective notes, the average submission is just under four reflective notes per member.  As expected, submissions from members are tending to the lower of the submission range – with only 14/129 members submitting six reflective notes for review. This is less than the 17/119 members submitted six reflective notes the previous year. Of the 14 that had submitted six reflective notes eight were deemed to be of good quality and the remaining six poor quality.

The CPD director asked for minor amendments in 13 of the information returned back to members in feedback. Most of these were asking advisers to signpost additional resources members that had poor quality reflective notes. A couple of other issues were to remind members to keep submissions anonymous (with appropriate reductions), with couple of comments focusing on the content rather than the learning or changing practice. Overall, the quality of feedback given to members through the review process is much better than previous years. I am pleased that the CPD advisers (including new advisers) are constantly improving and tweaking their comments to support the wider members in developing and submitting better quality reflective notes.

Our Current CPD Committee

Thank you

We would like to express our deep gratitude to following CPD Advisers who finished their terms in summer 2025, Andrew Terrell, Edward Kuonga, Toni Williams and Alison Bell. Your work supporting CPD committee has been greatly appreciated.