CORU CPD Audit on 1 November 2026: What Dietitians, Radiographers and Speech and Language Therapists Must Submit

Three CORU registration boards have a CPD audit date of 1 November 2026, and the audit period they will be examined against closes on 31 October 2026. Dietitians, radiographers and speech and language therapists therefore have days rather than months to complete anything missing from a two-year record.

Between them those three boards cover roughly 8,500 registrants — 4,278 radiographers, 2,561 speech and language therapists and 1,652 dietitians on the figures in CORU’s State of the Register for the first half of 2025.

The audit schedule, board by board

CORU publishes an audit period and audit date for each of the ten boards with open registers. It is worth knowing where your profession sits, because the periods are not aligned:

Most of these are 24-month periods. The Social Care Workers audit runs over 12 months.

The mistake the 24-month period invites

This is the single most important point for anyone audited on 1 November. A 24-month audit period does not mean 60 credits across two years. The requirement is 30 CPD credits in each 12-month period within the audit window.

A registrant with 50 credits in year one and 10 in year two has 60 credits and is non-compliant, because surplus credits do not carry forward. The arithmetic that matters is per year, not per period, and there is no way to retrospectively fix a thin first year from a strong second one.

Two further eligibility points. Only activities undertaken within the audit period count — learning from before 1 November 2024 is outside the window. And only registrants who were on the register for the full audit period are eligible for selection, so anyone who registered part-way through this window will not be audited on it.

How selection works

Registrants are chosen by random selection. CORU does not publish the number or percentage selected, so there is no basis for calculating your odds — the only sound assumption is that you may be picked.

Selected registrants submit their CPD record through the Registrant Portal. Note that the CPD Record Template is voluntary: it is a recording tool CORU makes available, not a required submission format. Registrants who have kept their record another way are not obliged to transcribe it into the template.

What the portal actually asks for

The submission has four components, and three of them are not simply a list of courses:

1. Learning activities achieving 30 credits of new or enhanced learning
2. Evaluation and reflection on that learning
3. A review of learning needs
4. Planned learning for the next 12 months

The phrase “new or enhanced learning” is doing work in the first component. Repeating a mandatory module you have completed annually for five years is attendance, not new or enhanced learning, and a record consisting largely of such repeats is vulnerable.

The fourth component catches people out because it is forward-looking. An audit of a period that closed in October asks what you intend to learn next — so a record assembled purely retrospectively will be missing a required element.

The declaration is separate from the audit

Every registrant, audited or not, completes a CPD declaration at annual renewal, confirming whether they engaged in CPD in line with their profession’s Code of Professional Conduct and Ethics over the previous 12 months. These are two distinct obligations: the declaration is made every year by everyone, while the audit tests a random sample against the evidence.

Where the obligation comes from, for dietitians

The CPD requirement is not freestanding. For dietitians it sits alongside the Standards of Proficiency for Dietitians, Version 2, issued July 2019, which is built on five domains.

Domain 4 carries the development obligations: being able to engage in and take responsibility for professional development (item 1); understanding the need to demonstrate evidence of ongoing continuing professional development and education (item 2); being able to evaluate and reflect critically on own professional practice to identify learning and development needs (item 3); and understanding the importance of, and being able to seek, professional development, supervision and feedback (item 5).

Domain 1 sets the competence boundary: practising safely and effectively within the legal, ethical and practice boundaries of the profession (item 1), and being able to identify the limits of one’s practice and know when to seek advice or refer (item 2). Domain 5, item 16 adds knowledge of the basic principles of effective teaching and learning, mentoring and supervision.

Read against the portal requirements, the alignment is deliberate: Domain 4 item 3 is the reflection and learning-needs review, and item 2 is the evidence obligation the audit tests.

What a defensible reflection looks like

Because the portal asks for evaluation and reflection rather than attendance, the quality of the written reflection is what distinguishes a compliant record from a list. Three features tend to separate the two.

First, it names what changed. A reflection saying a session was informative and relevant to the role evidences that the registrant was present. One that identifies a specific practice, protocol or judgement the registrant now approaches differently evidences learning. The portal’s own wording — new or enhanced learning — invites exactly that comparison between before and after.

Second, it connects to the learning-needs review. The four portal components are designed to form a loop: identified need, activity undertaken, reflection on effect, plan for what comes next. A reflection that cannot be traced back to a stated need, or forward into the plan, leaves the loop open.

Third, it is contemporaneous enough to be credible. Two years of reflections written in the same week, in the same voice, on activities spread across twenty-four months, is a pattern an experienced reviewer will notice.

The gap between declaring and evidencing

It is worth being blunt about the position of a registrant who has declared CPD compliance at each annual renewal but cannot produce a record covering both 12-month periods. The audit does not merely find a shortfall in credits; it puts the accuracy of those declarations in question.

That is a materially different conversation from a registrant who identifies a gap now and closes what they can before 31 October while being straightforward about the rest. With days remaining, an honest and complete-as-possible submission with a clear forward plan is a stronger position than a padded one.

No approved provider list

CORU does not accredit CPD providers. There is no approved list and no CORU-endorsed certificate. The registrant carries the judgement about whether an activity was relevant to their practice and defensible in an audit, which means a provider’s certificate is evidence that something happened, not evidence that it counted.

In an audit this shifts the burden onto the reflection. Two registrants can attend the same study day; the one who can explain what changed in their practice as a result is the one with a compliant record.

What to do before 31 October

Total your credits separately for each of the two 12-month periods, not as a single figure. Check that nothing you are counting falls outside 1 November 2024 to 31 October 2026. Make sure you have written reflections, not just a list. Write the review of learning needs and the plan for the next 12 months if they do not already exist. And strip any identifiable service user information from the record before submission.

For comparison, our guides to the equivalent position for occupational therapists, social workers, medical scientists and social care workers set out the board-level detail for those professions, and our overview of CORU CPD requirements for allied health professionals covers the framework across all open registers.

If you are registered in both jurisdictions, note that the UK model differs materially — our guide to HCPC CPD and audit for dietitians sets out that regime, and a single portfolio should not be assumed to satisfy both.