ABOUT THE ACEN Peachtree Road NE, Suite 850 Atlanta, Georgia P. (404) F. (404)

Transcription

1

2 ABOUT THE ACEN MISSION The Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing (ACEN) supports the interests of nursing education, nursing practice, and the public by the functions of accreditation. Accreditation is a voluntary, self-regulatory process by which non-governmental associations recognize educational institutions or programs that have been found to meet or exceed standards and criteria for educational quality. Accreditation also assists in the further improvement of the institutions or programs as related to resources invested, processes followed, and results achieved. The monitoring of certifi cate, diploma, and degree offerings is tied closely to state examination and licensing rules and to the oversight of preparation for work in the profession. PURPOSE The purpose of the ACEN is to provide specialized accreditation for programs of nursing education, both postsecondary and higher degree, which offer either a certifi cate, a diploma, or a recognized professional degree (clinical doctorate, master s/post-master s certifi cate, baccalaureate, associate, diploma, and practical). GOALS The Goals of the ACEN are to: Promulgate a common core of standards and criteria for the accreditation of nursing programs. Strengthen educational quality through assistance to associated nursing education units by evaluation processes, functions, publications, and research. Advocate self-regulation in nursing education. Promote peer review. Foster educational equity, access, opportunity, mobility, and preparation for employment based upon type of nursing education. Serve as gatekeeper to Title IV-HEA programs for which the ACEN is the accrediting agency. (These include some practical nursing and all hospital diploma programs eligible to participate in programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education or other federal agencies.) 3343 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 850 Atlanta, Georgia P. (404) F. (404)

3 Message from the ACEN Chief Executive Officer Dr. Sharon J. Tanner On behalf of the Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing (ACEN) Board of Commissioners and staff, I am pleased to present the 2013 Report to Constituents for your review. The Report includes information about the Fall 2012-Spring 2013 Accreditation Cycle program reviews and aggregated data from the Annual Reports submitted by ACEN-accredited programs. Each year, the ACEN receives overwhelmingly positive feedback about the information contained in the Report, and I expect you will fi nd this year s Report to be equally valuable. If you have any questions or comments about the Report, I encourage you to contact the ACEN offi ces. We value your feedback and will be happy to assist you. In response to the ever-increasing demand, the ACEN offered four Self-Study Forums in 2013, and over 1,200 program representatives participated. As always, the ACEN staff welcomed the opportunity to meet with nurse administrators and faculty from across the country and share important information about the Accreditation Standards and the program review process. In addition to the Self-Study Forums, the ACEN s newest resource Effectively Leading an ACEN-Accredited Program: A Workshop for the New Nurse Administrator was offered twice in The Workshop was developed to assist the growing number of newly appointed nurse administrators in ACEN-accredited programs with accreditation-related responsibilities, and the two sessions provided the opportunity to support 200 new nurse administrators. The evaluations from the Forums and the Workshop were extremely favorable, and we look forward to incorporating the feedback received in future programs. The ACEN also experienced exciting growth in the arena of international accreditation. During the Spring 2014 Cycle, a site visit was conducted for a baccalaureate nursing program in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and a consultative visit was also completed for a baccalaureate nursing program in Muscat, Oman. A consultative visit for a nursing program in Istanbul, Turkey is also planned for To date, the ACEN has worked with programs in Egypt, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates who are interested in the Candidacy process. These programs have been joined by baccalaureate and associate nursing programs located in the Caribbean, China, and South America. Another significant accomplishment was realized in the efforts taken by the ACEN to assist nursing programs with maintaining their access to HEA Title IV programs. As a result of our work with the U.S. Department of Education, the ACEN s scope of recognition was expanded to allow nursing education programs of all six program types not located in regionally accredited institutions to establish eligibility to participate in Title IV programs through accreditation with the ACEN

4 Message from the ACEN Chief Executive Officer Dr. Sharon J. Tanner Continued In last year s Report, I shared information with you about the many activities at the ACEN conducted in support of accreditation nursing programs, and I would like to give you an update for In 2013, the ACEN: Oriented 88 new program evaluators; Supported 581 program evaluators traveling for site visits; Reviewed 1,062 substantive changes; Reviewed 114 Candidacy Presentations; Processed more than 400 changes in nurse administrator; and Responded to 4,774 accreditation verifi cations. As you can see, our accredited programs are hard at work to ensure compliance with the Accreditation Standards and to meet the needs of the many thousands of nursing students who depend on them for the best in nursing education. The ACEN staff is pleased to partner with program representatives and support them in this essential work. As my time as the ACEN s Chief Executive Offi cer draws to a close, I am so proud of the thoughtful, strategic planning and the hard work undertaken by the ACEN Board, staff, and dedicated volunteers to ensure that the ACEN maintains its reputation as an agency of excellence and a leader in nursing education. It has been an honor to serve you and to partner with you in ensuring that the nursing students we teach today become safe and competent practitioners for the millions of patients they will care for as licensed practical nurses, registered nurses, and advanced practice nurses. Best wishes to each of you as you continue to set the bar high for each and every student! Sharon Tanner, EdD, MSN, RN Chief Executive officer, ACEN - 2 -

5 ACEN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Nursing Education Representatives Ann Bain, EdD, MSN, RN (Term ) Dean College of Education and Health Professions University of Arkansas Little Rock Little Rock, Arkansas Susan C. Baltrus, MS, RNBC, CNE (Term ) President, College of Nursing and Health Professions Central Maine Medical Center Lewiston, Maine Nancy Phoenix Bittner, PhD, RN, CNS (Term ) Vice President for Education and Professor of Nursing Lawrence Memorial/Regis College Collaborative Medford, Massachusetts Marilyn Brady, PhD, RN (Term ) Associate Dean, Nursing Programs Trident Technical College Charleston, South Carolina Linda K. Cockrell, MSN, RN (Term ) Program Leader, Health and Medical Sciences Central School of Practical Nursing, Norfolk Technical Vocational Center Norfolk, Virginia Kimberly K. Cribb, EdD, MSN, RN, CNE (Term ) MSN Program Director, Division of Nursing Thomas University Thomasville, Georgia Nursing Service Representatives Christina DiMichele, MSN, RN, NEA-BC (Term ) Nurse Manager The Children s Hospital of Philadelphia Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Janet Y. Harris, DNP, RN, NEA-BC (Term ) Chief Nursing Offi cer The University of Mississippi Medical Center Jackson, Mississippi Raquel Pasarón, DNP, APRN, FNP-BC (Term ) ARNP/Pediatric Surgery Liaison Department of Pediatric Surgery Miami Children s Hospital Miami, Florida Public Representatives Marsha H. Purcell, CAE (Term ) Director of Membership and Program Development American Farm Bureau Federation Washington, District of Columbia Howard S. Smith, EdD (Term ) Education Leadership Consultant Harris Beach, PLLC Buffalo, New York Holly J. Price, MSN, RN (Term ) Director, School of Nursing Firelands Regional Medical Center Sandusky, Ohio Mary Lou Rusin, EdD, RN, ANEF (Term ) Professor and Chair, Nursing Department Daemen College Amhurst, New York Peggy Tudor, EdD, MSN, RN (Term ) Department Chair, Associate Degree Nursing Eastern Kentucky University Richmond, Kentucky - 3 -

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS About the ACEN... Message from the CEO... ACEN Board of Commissioners... The Accreditation Process... Overview... Accreditation Decisions... Accreditation with Conditions... Accreditation with Warning... Denial of Accreditation... Follow-Up Reports... Areas Needing Development... Site Visit Evaluations... Summary... Presentation and Analysis of the ACEN Annual Reports... Annual Report Purpose and Use... Return Rate... Section 1. Substantive Change... Section II. Program Outcomes... Licensure Exam Pass Rates... Certifi cation Exam Pass Rates... Graduation Rates... Job Placement Rates... Section III. Program Operations... Student Enrollment... Graduates... Faculty... Program Complaints... Alternate Methods of Program Delivery... Distance Education... Preceptors... Standardized Testing... Laboratory Personnel... Partnerships... Simulation... Conclusions... ACEN Staff... FC

7 ACCREDITATION PROCESS AND OUTCOMES FALL SPRING 2013 OVERVIEW Two hundred and four (204) nursing programs were reviewed during the Fall 2012 and Spring 2013 accreditation cycles; of these, forty-six (46) programs were reviewed for initial accreditation (Tables 1 and 2). Table 1 is an overview of all program types that were reviewed presented by visit structure (i.e., single program or multiple programs within a nursing education unit). Table 2 presents a comprehensive overview of the accreditation decisions by program type for the Fall 2012 and Spring 2013 accreditation cycles. The Commission actions for the programs visited during the Fall 2012 and Spring 2013 accreditation cycles resulted in 194 programs being granted initial or continuing accreditation (Table 2). The 46 programs seeking initial accreditation included both newly established nursing programs as well as longstanding programs seeking accreditation for the fi rst time. The established programs seeking initial accreditation were most commonly associate and practical programs

8 C=Clinical Doctorate; M=Master s; B=Baccalaureate; D=Diploma; A=Associate; P=Practical Table 3 presents the numbers and types of recommendations by each level of review. The site visit team recommendations are available to the Evaluation Review Panel, and both the site visit team recommendations and the Evaluation Review Panel recommendations are presented to the ACEN Board of Commissioners for their consideration in reviewing the programs for initial and continuing accreditation. The Commission has the sole authority to determine the accreditation status of applicant programs. A detailed description of the accreditation process and policies are presented in the ACEN Accreditation Manual, available at

9 ACCREDITATION DECISIONS Accreditation with Conditions Accreditation with Conditions is awarded when a program is found in non-compliance with one (1) or two (2) Accreditation Standards. Table 4 presents data related to the Accreditation Standards found in non-compliance for all program types seeking continuing accreditation. Ninety (90) programs seeking continuing accreditation were granted Accreditation with Conditions during the Fall 2012 and Spring 2013 Cycles. As a result of Continuing Accreditation with Conditions, these programs are required to submit a Follow-Up Report and may also undergo a Follow-Up Visit as determined by the Commission. Accreditation with Warning I = Initial Accreditation ID = Denial of Initial Accreditation C = Continuing Accreditation CC = Continuing Accreditation with Conditions CW = Continuing Accreditation with Warning CD = Denial of Continuing Accreditation A determination of non-compliance with three (3) or more Accreditation Standards results in the program being granted Continuing Accreditation with Warning. For programs seeking continuing accreditation during the Fall 2012 and Spring 2013 Cycles, fi fteen (15) programs were granted Continuing Accreditation with Warning; these programs must undergo a comprehensive evaluation. This review includes a Self-Study Report, Site Visit, Evaluation Review Panel review, and Commission Decision within the timeframe determined by U.S. Department of Education regulations and ACEN policy. Table 5 presents data related to the Accreditation Standards found in non-compliance for all program types seeking continuing accreditation for which the Commission granted the program Continuing Accreditation with Warning.

10 * Programs may have demonstrated non-compliance with more than one Standard * Programs may have demonstrated non-compliance with more than one Standard - 8 -

11 Denial of Accreditation Initial accreditation is denied when a program is in non-compliance in one (1) or more Accreditation Standards as determined by the ACEN Board of Commissioners. During the Fall 2012 and Spring 2013 accreditation cycles, a total of 46 programs sought initial accreditation. Only fi ve (5) of the programs seeking initial accreditation were denied. Standard 4 Curriculum and Standard 6 Outcomes were the Standards most often found to be in non-compliance for the programs who were denied initial accreditation. Table 6 presents data related to the Accreditation Standards found in non-compliance for all program types where the Commission denied initial accreditation. An aggregated total of 245 Standards were determined to be in non-compliance across all program types for the Fall 2012 and Spring 2013 accreditation cycles. Standard 6 Outcomes is the Standard that was most frequently determined to be in non-compliance. Of the Standards found to be in non-compliance, 44% were Standard 6 Outcomes (107/245); 29% were Standard 2 Faculty and Staff (72/245); and 19% were Standard 4 Curriculum (46/245). Follow-Up Reports Programs granted Continuing Accreditation with Conditions are required to submit Follow-Up Reports to demonstrate compliance with the one (1) or two (2) specifi c Standard(s) found to be in non-compliance at the time of the site visit. Follow- Up Reports are reviewed by the Evaluation Review Panel, and a recommendation to accept or to not accept the Follow-Up Report is made based on the program s demonstration of compliance with the Standard(s) at the time that the Follow-Up Report is submitted. The ACEN Board of Commissioners reviews the - 9 -

12 Follow-Up report and determines whether the program is in compliance with the Standard(s) and affi rms or denies continuing accreditation for the program. A decision to deny continuing accreditation results in removal of the program from the listing of ACEN-accredited nursing programs. Table 7 provides an overview of Follow- Up Reports reviewed during the Fall 2012 and Spring 2013 accreditation cycles. Seventy-one (71) Follow-Up Reports were reviewed, with sixty-three (63) of the reports accepted through affi rmation of continuing accreditation, and eight (8) reports resulting in denial of continuing accreditation. Areas Needing Development Each program evaluated for continuing and initial accreditation receives a fi nal accreditation decision letter from the Board of Commissioners within thirty (30) days of the decision being rendered. The comprehensive evaluation process often results in fi nal decisions that include areas needing development that have been identified for the ACEN Standards. Areas needing development provide guidance and recommendations for the program s faculty members to assist them in their efforts to improve the quality of the educational program. Table 8 presents the aggregated frequency of identifi ed areas needing development by Standard and by program type. Standard 6 Outcomes has the highest number of areas needing development across all program types, followed by Standard 4 Curriculum and Standard 2 Faculty and Staff. Site Visit Evaluation Essential to the comprehensive evaluation process in the determination of a program s accreditation status is the onsite review. The site visit provides an opportunity for the site visit team members to verify, clarify, and amplify the compliance of the nursing program based on its self-review as presented in the program s Self-Study Report. The onsite review team is composed of nursing peers from education and clinical practice who represent commitment to excellence in nursing education and to the goals and

13 * Programs may have multiple areas needing development in one or more Standards Rating scale: 5 = Excellent; 4 = Good; 3 = Satisfactory; 2 = Fair; 1 = Poor; NA = Not Applicable processes of quality improvement. The ACEN asks all site visitors and nursing programs to evaluate the effectiveness of the review processes implemented by the site visitors. The Self-Study Report is a critical element in the accreditation process. All members of the site visit team are asked to evaluate the completeness of the program s Self-Study Report. In addition, the performance of the team during the onsite review is vital to the collection and review of essential data that verifies and clarifi es the Self-Study Report. The team chair evaluates the overall preparation, professionalism, collegiality, and assistance of the team members. The team members evaluate the team chair s conduct of the visit and the overall

14 preparation, professionalism, and collegiality of the team members. The nursing program is asked to evaluate the team chair s conduct of the visit and the overall preparation, professionalism, and helpfulness of the site visit team members in addition to the overall impressions from the onsite review. Table 9 provides an overview of aggregated evaluation fi ndings from all participants in the site visit process. SUMMARY The accreditation process is a vital component in ensuring that nursing programs demonstrate the highest degree of effectiveness in the delivery of quality nursing education. Further, the results of the implementation of the accreditation process demonstrate that the ACEN Standards and Criteria continue to provide a framework for the assessment of program quality in a thorough and effective manner

15 Presentation and Analysis of the ACEN Annual Reports Academic Year

16 Annual Report Purpose and Use The ACEN Annual Report is used by the ACEN and our many constituents to monitor components essential to the maintenance of a quality educational program. Additionally, the Report facilitates the communication of trended aggregate data to accredited programs and other interested individuals and groups concerning all nursing program types. This presentation addresses data generated from the academic year (July 1, 2012 June 30, 2013) with the exception of enrollment fi gures and faculty numbers. Enrollment and faculty information is based on data available on a single day, which is October 15, To facilitate the presentation, information in this Report to Constituents is presented in sections. Section I. Substantive Change addresses planned and unplanned changes within programs. Section II. Program Outcomes tracks program outcome achievement through licensure and certifi cation examination results, rates of employment of program graduates, and graduation rates. Section III. Program Operations includes data on student enrollment in the governing organization and each nursing program; graduation fi gures; faculty numbers; program complaints; signifi cant changes in enrollment; the use of online technology in program delivery; the use of preceptors; the use of standardized tests; the use of alternate methods of program delivery; program involvement with partnerships; and the use and credentials of practice laboratory personnel. As always, an open feedback section completes the report along with a call for nominations for ACEN Program Evaluators and Commissioners. Return Rate The return rate for the Annual Report, by governing organization, was 96.9% (970/1001). Submission of an annual report by the nursing education unit administrator is a requirement for maintenance of ACEN accreditation. The submission of reports is monitored closely, and regular communication occurs between the ACEN and programs that have not yet submitted their annual report. A 100% return rate is expected

17 Section I. Substantive Change For the academic year, 488 programs reported 714 substantive changes. The most commonly reported change across all program types was a change in the nurse administrator, which accounted for 34% of all substantive changes reported. Of the remaining substantive changes reported, Table 10 displays in aggregate the most commonly reported changes by program type. The total number of reported substantive changes declined by 18% from Curriculum changes and a decline in program outcomes, including the licensure examination pass rates, certification examination pass rates, program completion rates, and employment rates, continue to be the most frequent substantive changes, inclusive of planned and unplanned changes, for all program types except diploma programs. The most commonly reported change for diploma programs involves adverse actions resulting from a fi nancial or compliance audit and program review. New this year among the fi ve (5) most frequently reported substantive changes are changes in the mission/philosophy as nursing education units update their programs of study as well as changes in the method of measurements such as clock hours or credits hours. In addition, the sixth and seventh most frequently reported substantive changes are reports of planned changes in program length and unplanned changes in State Board of Nursing approval. Section II. Program Outcomes Licensure Examination Pass Rates A review of the data reported by the nursing programs demonstrates that the mean NCLEX- RN and -PN pass rates for graduates of ACENaccredited programs continue to exceed the National Council of State Boards of Nursing

18 (NCSBN) published national mean for all program types, except for baccalaureate programs. However, the ACEN-accredited programs were asked to report NCLEX pass rates between July 1, 2012, and June 30, 2013, and the NCSBN reports NCLEX pass rates for a calendar year. Table 11 presents NCLEX-PN and NCLEX-RN pass rates as posted by the NCSBN for fi rst time, U.S.-educated candidates. It should also be noted that the passing standard for the NCLEX-RN examination was revised effective April 1, Table 12 presents data on NCLEX-RN and -PN mean pass rates as reported by ACEN-accredited programs since A review of the data for NCLEX-RN from demonstrates that the performance of graduates from ACENaccredited baccalaureate programs was below the national mean by 3%-4.6% for years 2011 and 2012 but increased to 1.5% above the national mean for The NCLEX-RN and -PN performance by diploma, associate, and practical graduates has consistently remained above the national mean. This is of note as the passing standard for both the NCLEX-RN and -PN increased twice between April 1, 2010 and April 1, Certification Examination Pass Rates ACEN-accredited programs report pass rates for the certifi cation examinations taken by graduates of master s and clinical doctorate programs. As a variety of certifying agencies offer certifi cation examinations for various nursing specialties, a

19 comparison with any reference group is not recommended. Table 13 presents certifi cation examination performance as reported by master s programs between 2004 and Graduation Rates Based on the ACEN defi nition*, the completion rate across all program types is consistently above 70%. For this reporting period, the rates range from 71.74% %. These data continue to suggest that once registered in their fi rst required nursing course in an accredited nursing program, students have a high probability of remaining in the major and completing the program of study successfully (Table 14). Job Placement Rates The aggregate job placement rate within six (6) to nine (9) months of graduation by program type continues to exceed national data, ranging from 84.38% 95.74% (Table 15). Analysis of the submitted Annual Reports, Substantive Change *Graduation rate: the number of students who complete the program within 150% of the time of the stated program length

20 Reports, and other data suggests that reported employment rates may be skewed if reporting programs fail to exclude program graduates enrolling directly into another type of nursing education program in their calculations of job placement. As noted in previous years, the practical nursing programs continue to post the lowest mean job placement rates of the six (6) program types, while associate and diploma programs have declined in mean job placement rates since Socioeconomic factors, such as the downturn in the national economy, have undoubtedly contributed to this trend in job placements. In addition, the hiring practices of health systems may impact the types of graduates preferred for entry-level positions. Healthcare organizations may be choose to hire fewer graduates from specifi c program types in a competitive job market. However, it was of note that the job placement rates for graduates of master s program demonstrated an increase during years programs which may account for the decreased enrollment in associate and practical programs. The percentage of programs reporting a change in enrollment greater than 25% between October 2012 and October 2013 ranged from 2% in associate programs to 5% in baccalaureate programs. The majority of accredited nursing programs reported no signifi cant changes in enrollment. Student data by enrollment status, full- or parttime, are presented in Table 17. Of signifi cance was Section III. Program Operations Student Enrollment Table 16 presents total headcount enrollment fi gures as of October 2013 for each program type as compared to October The master s programs experienced an increase in headcount enrollment between 2010 and Baccalaureate and diploma programs have remained stable over the last two (2) years, while associate and practical programs have experienced a 2.5-5% decrease in total headcount enrollment. During 2013, twentysix (26) ACEN-accredited programs closed fi fteen (15) associate programs; four (4) diploma programs; and seven (7) practical

21 the overall decrease in total headcount enrollment in full- and part-time programs. Diploma programs had a slight increase in the mean number of fulltime students, while the mean number for parttime students remained stable for diploma and practical programs even with a slight decrease in part-time total enrollment. Table 18 provides an overview of the range of credits and the total mean number of credit hours from the self-reported data specifi c to each program type. Programs submit the total number of credits required to complete the certifi cate or the degree, including all general education and pre- and co-requisite courses. Over the past fi ve (5) years, the mean number of credit hours has decreased, and a signifi cant decrease is anticipated by 2015, when several state mandates will become effective, further decreasing total credit hours. Graduates Table 19 displays the data for mean number of graduates by program type. Associate, diploma, and practical programs have seen a decrease in the mean number of graduates since 2010, while master s programs have increased the mean number of graduates since 2011, which corresponds with the trend in total enrollment numbers. The mean number of graduates for baccalaureate programs has been variable, but there has been an overall increase since Faculty Data provided by the program through the annual self-reporting process includes the number of fulland part-time faculty in each ACEN-accredited

22 nursing program. Table 20 compares the total number of full-time to part-time faculty in addition to the mean by program type reported in 2011, 2012, and The total number of part-time faculty increased across all program types from The practical and diploma programs experienced a 4-6% decrease in full-time faculty, while master s programs had a 31% decrease in full-time faculty in A decrease in full- and part-time faculty in diploma and practical programs may refl ect the number of program closures of accredited programs. In addition, the change in the number and type of faculty may be refl ective of the implementation of distance education modalities. Program Complaints Analysis of the data for the reporting period demonstrates that, overall, the mean number of formal program complaints as defined by the program has remained consistent across all program types. However, the percentage of programs reporting one (1) or more complaints has increased since 2010 across all program types except for practical programs. The percentage of baccalaureate programs reporting one (1) or more complaints has fluctuated, and the range of complaints per program has increased. However, the mean number of complaints for baccalaureate programs in 2012 and 2013 remained relatively stable. Table 21 compares data for complaints between 2010 and

23 delivery, either hybrid/blended or fully online, is the most commonly used method of alternate delivery followed by alternate schedule options. Table 22 provides an overview of alternate methods used for program delivery by program type for the past two (2) academic years. Alternate Methods of Program Delivery The implementation of alternate methods used for program delivery is a continuing trend among all program types. Some programs use multiple methods of delivery, while others may employ only one (1) or two (2) alternate delivery methods. The master s programs most frequently employ online delivery and alternate schedule options. Although all program types employ alternate scheduling options, all but diploma programs have decreased the number of options available in alternate schedules. Across all program types, online Table 23 provides an overview of the percentage of programs, by program type, that used any form of alternate method for program delivery. Alternate methods include online, multiple teaching locations, accelerated program options, alternate schedule (e.g., part-time or week-end), ITV, self-paced learning packages/courses, compressed video, or other methods. A greater number of master s programs used at least one method of alternate program delivery than other program types. Distance Education The use of online delivery for multiple courses across program types has fl uctuated, with master s and baccalaureate programs having the largest percentage of online delivery for multiple courses within the nursing program. The percentage of master s and baccalaureate programs offering

24 online delivery of entire programs and/or tracks has increased, while the majority of accredited diploma and practical programs report that they do not employ online delivery of courses. Table 24 presents a comparison of online delivery by program type. Preceptors Accredited nursing programs are asked to respond to questions related to the use of preceptors as defined by the ACEN. The data showed that the use of preceptors for the reporting period is consistent with the data as reported in Over 87% of master s programs report the use of preceptors, while practical programs identify the least use of preceptors at 24.68%. Associate, diploma, and practical programs report the use of preceptors most frequently in the last course, while the master s and baccalaureate programs indicate that preceptors are used in multiple courses. Table 56 provides an overview of self-reported preceptor use across program types. Standardized Testing Data analysis of the programs utilizing standardized testing confi rm the continued use of standardized testing across the pre-licensure programs. Over 93% of associate, diploma, and practical programs report the use of standardized testing for specifi c courses or as a progression and/or graduation requirement. Of the programs using standardized testing, the majority (75%) use standardized testing as an evaluation method in a specifi c course. Many programs use standardized testing as part of their progression and/or graduation requirements, most notably in baccalaureate programs where 38.85% of programs using standardized testing stated that the tests are used as requirements for progression

25 and/or graduation. Table 26 provides an overview of the use of standardized testing across all program types. Laboratory Personnel The use of personnel in nursing skills laboratories is consistent across all program types with nearly 100% of the associate, diploma, and practical programs reporting the use of personnel in the learning laboratories. Just over 15% of baccalaureate programs report that they do not use personnel in nursing skills laboratories, which may refl ect the post-licensure baccalaureate programs in which the use of laboratories may be limited. In addition, over 34% of master s programs report that they do not use laboratory personnel. Practical and diploma programs reported faculty as the most common type of personnel in the practice laboratory. The ACEN Accreditation Standards and Criteria require that the credentials of those teaching or evaluating students in the skills and/or simulation laboratories

26 hold credentials commensurate with the required faculty credentials for the program type. Table 27 is an overview of the types of personnel used in nursing skills laboratories across all program types. Partnerships All program types reported existing partnerships with agents/agencies outside of the governing organization. Partnerships, as defi ned by the ACEN, are agreements (formal relationships) between a nursing education unit/governing organization and an outside agent/agency to accomplish specifi c objectives and goals over a period of time. Partnerships are distinct from the clinical facility agreements for student learning experiences. All program types reported an increase in partnerships when compared to data from Table 28 presents an overview of the partnership data

27 Simulation Simulation continues to be a major teaching modality that is used across program types, particularly the pre-licensure programs, with the greatest percentage of use in associate programs at 98.84% and the least percentage of use in master s programs at 52.22%. Programs identifi ed that simulation is used most often as part of a class or for the evaluation of required nursing skills. Table 29 presents the percentage of programs reporting the use of simulation and, of those using simulation, how simulation is incorporated into the curriculum. Conclusions ACEN-accredited programs continue to demonstrate positive outcomes for students, including the success rates for the licensure and certifi cation examinations as well as high program completion rates. It is also evident from review of the fi ndings that accredited nursing programs continue to respond and adapt to meet student learning needs by offering alternate methods of program delivery and the use of simulation learning experiences. ACEN-accredited programs provide access to professional and educational opportunities as evidenced by the increased use of alternate methods of program delivery; increased enrollment in certain program types; and the offering of post-licensure baccalaureate programs. Based on the review of the data as reported from more than 1,200 nursing programs of all types, the ACEN Accreditation Standards and Criteria have clearly demonstrated their effectiveness in providing a framework and context for establishing and maintaining excellence in nursing education programs

28 ACEN STAFF Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing 3343 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 850 Atlanta, Georgia P. (404) F. (404) Sharon Tanner, EdD, MSN, RN Chief Executive Offi cer PROFESSIONAL STAFF Nell Ard, PhD, RN, CNE, ANEF Associate Director Abigail Gerding, PhD, MS, RN Associate Director Georgia Vest, DNP, MSN, RN, CNE Associate Director ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF Yovanka Heyburn Executive Assistant Stephanie Larson Controller Alex Mariquit Director of Operations SUPPORT STAFF Jessica Dermody Operations Assistant jdermody@acenursing.org Christine Favole Administrative Assistant for Operations cfavole@acenursing.org Carla Haynes Operations Specialist chaynes@acenursing.org Justin Jerome Assistant to the Ofi ce of the CEO jjerome@acenursing.org Katherine Little Accreditation Specialist klittle@acenursing.org Matthew Middlebrooks Administrative Assistant for Accreditation Services mmiddlebrooks@acenursing.org Vishal Patel Data and Records Assistant vpatel@acenursing.org Jocelyn Pineda Accounting Assistant jpineda@acenursing.org Robert Steinbruegge Administrative Assistant to the Professional Staff rsteinbruegge@acenursing.org Shelia Washington Operations Assistant swashington@acenursing.org