What Are CPD Points and CPD Hours — And Do They Actually Matter?

What Are CPD Points and CPD Hours — And Do They Matter?

If you work in a regulated profession or deliver training, you have almost certainly encountered CPD points, CPD hours, or CPD credits. The terminology shifts depending on who is asking and why. That inconsistency causes genuine confusion — not just for learners, but for training providers trying to present their courses credibly.

This post sets out what the terms actually mean, where they come from, and what they should — and should not — be used for.

CPD Points and CPD Hours: What Is the Difference?

CPD points and CPD hours are different measurement systems for the same thing — learning time and effort. One system counts duration in hours; the other converts that duration into a numerical point value. In practice, 1 CPD hour typically equals 1 CPD point in most frameworks, which means the distinction is largely cosmetic.

Some professional bodies use CPD credits instead, adding a third label to an already fragmented landscape. Whether a body calls it a point, an hour, or a credit, the underlying intention is the same: to give professionals and their employers a rough quantitative record of learning activity over a given period.

The important word there is “rough”. These figures capture duration, not depth. A three-hour course that changes how someone practises their profession and a three-hour course that does not are recorded identically if you measure only time.

Which Professional Bodies Use Which System?

There is no universal standard governing how CPD is measured or recorded. Different regulatory and professional bodies have made their own choices, and those choices have not been harmonised.

CIPD uses hours as its unit of measurement for HR and learning professionals. The RCN uses hours for nursing CPD requirements. The FCA uses hours when setting continuing professional development expectations for financial services professionals. These are three entirely separate sectors, each arriving independently at the same unit — which tells you something about how organic and uncoordinated the development of CPD measurement has been.

Some bodies in legal, engineering, and healthcare sectors have adopted points or credits, sometimes with different conversion rates or with distinctions between structured and unstructured learning. If you are delivering CPD to professionals across more than one sector, you need to check what each relevant body actually requires rather than assuming the labels are interchangeable.

Where Did CPD Points Come From?

The origins of CPD as a formal requirement are reasonably well documented — the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy is often cited as one of the earliest UK bodies to formalise it in the 1960s and 70s. But the specific invention of CPD points as a quantification mechanism is less clear. The origins are contested, with different professional bodies and academic institutions claiming early adoption at roughly the same period through the 1980s and 1990s.

At Open CPD, questions about who invented CPD points come up when providers are trying to understand whether there is a single authoritative standard they should be aligning with. The honest answer is that there is not. CPD points were invented by professional bodies to quantify learning, and because each body developed its own approach independently, what you are left with is a patchwork of conventions rather than a coherent system.

That is not necessarily a problem, provided everyone involved understands what the numbers do and do not represent.

What Actually Matters: Structured Learning Outcomes

The number of points or hours attached to a course is a proxy measure. What matters is not the points but the structured learning outcomes — specifically, what a course sets out to achieve in terms of Aims, Skills, and Outcomes.

Aims describe the purpose of the learning. Skills identify what the learner will be able to do as a result. Outcomes define what demonstrable change in knowledge, competence, or behaviour should follow. A course built around those three elements has a defensible educational rationale. A course described only by its duration does not.

This is where a lot of CPD provision falls short. Providers state the hours, issue a certificate, and move on. The certificate proves attendance. It does not prove learning. Professional bodies increasingly recognise this, which is why many have shifted from requiring a set number of hours to requiring reflective records that demonstrate how learning was applied.

How Open CPD Handles Hours and Certificates

The Open CPD platform allows providers to set CPD hours per course when they are building and self-accrediting their content. That figure is set by the provider based on the actual contact and study time involved — it is not assigned arbitrarily or inflated to appear more substantial.

When a learner completes a course, the verifiable certificates include CPD hours earned alongside the course title, the provider’s details, and a unique verification reference. The certificate can be checked by an employer, a professional body, or a regulator without needing to contact the provider directly.

The hours figure on the certificate is one data point. The more meaningful information is what the course covered, what it was designed to achieve, and whether the provider has articulated that clearly through defined Aims, Skills, and Outcomes. Those elements are part of what Open CPD asks providers to complete when they set up a course — not because it is a bureaucratic requirement, but because it is what makes the certificate worth holding.

CPD points and hours are useful shorthand. They give professionals a way to track and report their learning activity, and they give employers and regulators a minimum benchmark to work with. But they are only meaningful when the learning behind them has been properly designed. The number is the last thing to worry about; the structure of the learning is the first.