SDL Tool: 2-50 Committee Review of Registrant Submission
Legislative Authority: Health Professions Procedural Code, being Schedule 2 to The Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, s 80.1 and O. Reg. 593/94: GENERAL, s 27, 28 Self-Assessment, Continuing Education and Professional Development.
Policy Statement
The Quality Assurance Committee (QAC) of the College of Dietitians of Ontario (CDO) is committed to applying the principles of right touch regulation in its review of Self-Directed Learning (SDL) Tools. This ensures regulatory actions are proportionate, targeted, and consistent, fostering a supportive environment for continuous professional development.
The objectives of this review are:
- Ensure registrants meet the requirements of their Self-Directed Learning (SDL) Tools by submitting two learning goals with action plans that demonstrate continuous learning, quality improvement and risk awareness.
- Monitor the quality of the SDL Tool submission, supporting registrants in assessing learning needs, setting learning goals, selecting strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes.
- Provide constructive feedback or coaching to help registrants improve their SDL Tool submissions, ensuring a supportive and non-punitive process.
- Use the review results to enhance the SDL Tool and related policies, aligning them with the principles of right touch regulation.
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW
Selection for Review
- Beginning in November, a random percentage sample of SDL Tools will be selected for review. This percentage sample will be determined based on current trends and data to ensure that regulatory efforts are focused on areas of greatest need.
- Registrants identified as needing improvements in the past year will be included, emphasizing support over penalization.
- Registrant who submitted their SDL tool after the deadline will also be included in the review, with emphasis on understanding and addressing any barriers to timely submission.
- Registrants with incomplete or brief SDL tool submissions will also be included in the review. This includes screening for submissions that lack sufficient detail to demonstrate thoughtful reflection or adequate learning.
Preliminary Review and Action
- On behalf of the Committee, QA Staff will screen the initial review of selected SDL tools using criteria established by the QAC.
- If the SDL tool meets the established criteria, staff will notify the registrant via email, acknowledging their successful submission and offering additional resources that may further support their professional development.
- Screen for brief or incomplete submissions and staff will offer registrants the opportunity to resubmit their goals after reviewing coaching webinar recordings.
- If staff are unable to determine if the SDL tool meets the criteria, the registrants’ SDL Tool Goals will be referred to the QAC for review and consideration.
QAC Review and Outcome
The QAC or designated panel will review the referred SDL Tools in or after November using the criteria established by the QAC. The QAC or panel will determine the most appropriate action depending on the outcome of the review as follows:
- Determine that the SDL tool met the requirements of the QAC and therefore take no action.
- Require the registrants to review the coaching webinar recording and then resubmit one or both goals and action plans.
- Require the registrant to undergo a Peer and Practice Assessment (repeated problems with the completeness and accuracy of the SDL Tool).
- Refer a registrant to the ICRC for non-compliance with the requirement to submit an SDL Tool in the form provided by the Registrar (incomplete submission or one that is so inadequate as to be deemed not to have been submitted in the form provided by the Registrar).
- Any registrant whose SDL Tool needs improvements will also be selected for review in the following year.
Post QAC Review Action
- QA staff will notify the registrant of the QAC review outcome and provide any necessary feedback or resources via email.
The QAC will consider any unique circumstances that may have impacted on a registrant’s ability to meet the SDL Tool requirements. The focus will be on understanding and addressing these challenges, ensuring that the regulatory process is fair, equitable, and proportionate.
The approach outlined in this procedure aligns with the principles of right-touch regulation, ensuring that actions taken by the QAC are proportionate, supportive, and focused on enhancing public protection through the continuous professional development of dietitians.
*If referred to the ICRC, the staff will draft a decision letter (using pre-approved templates) outlining the QAC or panel decision with reasons (based on the pre-established criteria). The Director of Professional Practice will sign this decision letter. The decision letter will be emailed to the registrant within 15 business days of making the decision.

Miller’s Pyramid

Mckimm, Judy & Swanwick, Tim. (2009). Setting learning objectives. British journal of hospital medicine (London, England: 2005). INTEGRATED COMPETENCIES FOR DIETETIC EDUCATION AND PRACTICE (ICDEP)
According to Miller’s pyramid, there’s a difference between learning goals (know and knows how) and work tasks/actions (shows how/performance or does/action goals). Work tasks/actions or performance goals focus on getting the desired result/actions, like wanting to do or perform in a certain way. When you identify gaps, creating a learning goal is where you’re less concerned with producing results and far more focused on having to learn specific and necessary learning outcomes to get the work task or performance done.
Requirements for the Goal:
Criteria for Reviewing Learning Goals | Rationale | Yes | No |
Relevance to dietetic practice: Goals should relate to the dietetics practice, ensuring they are meaningful and applicable. | Relevant goals directly enhance professional performance, supporting public protection. | ||
Focus on Professional Growth: Goals should enhance the dietitian’s skills and knowledge, improve quality of care/practice or promote safety and minimize potential risks in dietetic practice. | Focusing on growth supports ongoing competence, while addressing risk ensures proactive protection of client safety and aligns with public protection standards. | ||
Outcome-Oriented Approach: Goals should specify clear learning outcomes to show their impact on practice and benefit to clients. | Defining outcomes provides a focus on tangible results, improving the quality of care. | ||
Actionable and Realistic plans: Goals should have achievable action plans that are realistic within the dietitian’s context. | Actionable plans guide successful goal achievement, reducing stress and making the process more supportive. |