The Four Weeks Without a Preceptor

Amira should not certify the log as accurate while it records four weeks as supervised practice by an approved preceptor. The ITP log is a regulatory record used to decide whether she has met the supervised-practice requirement; certifying something she knows is untrue would be dishonest and could become a conduct matter, quite apart from the hours problem. The core issue is that supervised practice means practice under an approved preceptor with appropriate oversight. A locum who is not an approved preceptor, providing phone advice from another store, is unlikely to satisfy that requirement for four full weeks. Amira should tell the PSNZ ITP coordinator promptly, explain what happened, correct the log to show the true supervision arrangement, and ask what evidence or retrospective approval might be possible. She should keep her explanation factual and avoid blaming the owner in a way that obscures her own responsibility. Early, honest disclosure is both the professional course and the best way to preserve her credibility.

The likely consequence is that the four weeks will not count towards the 52-week full-time equivalent requirement unless PSNZ agrees retrospectively that the arrangement met supervision standards. Amira should plan for an extension of about four weeks rather than assume the hours will be accepted. She should ask PSNZ to confirm the deficit in writing, arrange an approved preceptor for the remaining period, and discuss whether she remains eligible for the scheduled Assessment Centre. She should also tell her prospective employer that her registration date may move; a conditional offer is not a reason to conceal a regulatory problem. Her mitigation is early disclosure, a concrete remediation plan, evidence of reflection, and no further inaccurate recording. The owner's 'everyone rounds up' comment does not protect her: the intern is responsible for the accuracy of her own log, and a pattern of inaccurate certification would be treated more seriously than a single corrected error.

Before the leave, the owner and Amira should have checked the ITP supervision requirements and confirmed whether another approved preceptor would be on site for the whole period. If no approved preceptor was available, the options were to arrange cover by an approved preceptor, defer the leave, pause the counting of supervised practice, or notify PSNZ in advance and seek approval for an alternative arrangement. Phone oversight by a non-approved locum should not have been presented as equivalent without written confirmation. The weekly sheets should have been completed contemporaneously by the person actually providing supervision, not reconstructed afterwards. The underlying principle is that supervision protects patients and confirms competence; it is not an administrative tick. A short delay or a planned extension is preferable to an audit finding of false certification, which can affect both registration and future good character assessments.