Canadian CPD is a tale of two programmes that look alike from a distance, both require 250 credits over five years with at least 25 in any year, and diverge everywhere that matters for recording modern digital learning. Family physicians report to the CFPC's Mainpro+; Royal College specialists report to the MOC programme; and an AI-assisted learning session, an adaptive question set, a tutored correction, a cited clinical answer, enters each system through different doors with different labels. Here is the honest map.
Mainpro+: the family medicine system
Mainpro+ sorts activity into certified, certified-assessment and non-certified categories. Certified status is not self-declared: it requires CFPC-compliant review and approval of the activity, with certified-assessment reserved for programmes built around structured assessment of the physician. Non-certified credits cover legitimate self-directed learning that has not been through that process, reading, self-study, and it is here that AI-assisted learning naturally lands today: an iatroX session, question, source, score, misconception, correction, retest, reflection, records cleanly as non-certified self-learning, claimed by you with rich documentation behind it. The label to resist is the tempting one: no platform's session becomes "certified" or "certified-assessment" because its design resembles assessment; those words belong to CFPC approval, and until a programme holds it, non-certified is the truthful column.
MOC: the specialist system
The Royal College's MOC programme thinks in sections: group learning, self-learning, and assessment, with the programme placing specific weight on Section 3 assessment activities within the five-year cycle. AI-assisted learning maps most naturally to the self-learning territory, structured reading, scanning, systems for personal learning, where a documented question-and-correction loop is a strong entry: the session record supplies the planned-learning shape MOC self-learning likes, a question, a source, an outcome, a reflection. Section 3 is the guarded door: accredited assessment carries programme-level requirements about design, feedback and provider standing, and a commercial question bank does not become Section 3 by being rigorous. The truthful posture mirrors Mainpro+: document richly, map provisionally to self-learning, and treat assessment-section claims as requiring the programme's own recognition routes.
The same session, two records
Concretely: a Friday session in which you scored 68 percent across your declared scope, the Tutor named two misconceptions and corrected them against cited guidance, and a retest three weeks later held at 90 percent. The family physician logs it in Mainpro+ as non-certified self-learning with honest hours, attaches the record, and reflects in a sentence or three. The specialist logs it as MOC self-learning, same record, same reflection, potentially framing the baseline-and-retest cycle within a personal learning project. Both physicians hold documentation stronger than the category demands, which is precisely the right way round: the category states the claim, the record over-delivers on proof, and neither overstates what any accreditor has recognised.
What would change with accreditation
Both systems have routes by which programmes become certified or accredited, CFPC review on one side, the College's provider and assessment frameworks on the other, and a platform that pursued them could legitimately offer certified or assessment-section claims in future. Until then, the division of labour is clean: iatroX documents, question, source jurisdiction, active time, performance, remediation, retention, reflection, attestation, and Canadian physicians claim under the category their programme's rules support, with the record ready for any audit. A platform promising Canadian credits without naming its accreditation is answering a question its paperwork cannot.
Frequently asked questions
Do non-certified and self-learning credits actually count?
Fully, within each programme's structure and annual expectations; they are legitimate categories, not consolation prizes. The five-year cycle's other requirements, including assessment components, are met through the activities those rules define.
Can point-of-care questions be claimed?
Yes, as self-learning, when they represent genuine learning with reflection; both programmes' spirit favours documented, planned learning over reflexive logging. Trivial confirmations stay out of the record in Canada as everywhere.
Which system applies to a dual-credentialed physician?
You report under the college(s) you maintain; many dual-track physicians keep one rich record and file it under each programme's rules. The field set travels; only the category labels change.
How should Canadian residents and new-to-practice physicians read this?
The reporting obligations arrive with independent practice, but the recording habit is worth building earlier: a residency's worth of documented question-and-correction cycles converts directly into the self-learning entries both programmes accept from day one of the first cycle. Internationally trained physicians entering either system gain doubly, because the same rich record that serves Mainpro+ or MOC also evidences the currency work their transition already demands.
Is there any Canadian equivalent of point-of-care CME credit?
Both programmes accommodate documented point-of-care learning within their self-directed categories rather than as a named credit product; the loop that matters is identical, a real clinical question, a credible source, a recorded outcome and reflection. Claim it under the category your programme's current rules support, with the record carrying the proof.