For-Profit, Nonselective NP Schools are Hurting Our Reputation and Credibility

For-profit, nonselective NP programs are becoming more and more popular, and I wanted to share my thoughts and what I have learned from my experience and the experience of others.

Updated:  

The difference between nurse practitioner (NP) programs has become a topic of interest, and for good reason.  I am going to highlight some of the significant differences between the NP Program that I attended and the program attended by three friends. To provide some background information, the program I completed is a highly rated NP Program from a nonprofit, selective university. My NP Program holds a high ranking on US News & World Report and is considered one of the best in the state. Three of my friends attended one of the largest, for-profit, nonselective nursing universities in the United States.

Within the first year of each of us starting our NP Program, it became apparent that the grading standards and effort required of each of us varied significantly. These variations and inconsistencies grew as we navigated towards graduation. During the more difficult semesters in my own DNP program, I was putting in 100 or more hours for each proctored exam to earn the 85% minimum passing grade. I became frustrated with how easily my friends seemed to pass the classes in their programs, while my program seemed to require endless hours of nonstop studying, isolation, and sacrifice.

My friends and I frequently shared advice on studying methods, time management, and textbook resources. It wasn't until I was asked to read over a friend's research paper for a health policy course that I had to question the integrity of these for-profit, nonselective NP programs. My friend's paper was written at a remedial level of English, with multiple grammatical and punctuation errors. I was stunned. This was the work of a second-year GRADUATE nursing student. I returned my friend's paper with a list of recommended edits and revisions. She thanked me but dismissed my comments, stating that her school did not require "any of those things" and that she had received near-perfect scores on her previous papers. The edits I recommended included the proper use of 'their' and 'there,’ corrections for run-on and fragmented sentences, comma placement, misspelled words, and APA citations. She ultimately decided not to apply my corrections and submitted her paper as it was. I was shocked when she received yet another 'A' to add to her academic repertoire. Meanwhile, my professors returned papers ungraded if there was an extra space at the end of a paragraph. What was happening?

For-profit, nonselective NP programs have become popular, albeit expensive, avenues to obtain a nurse practitioner degree. Admission requirements are minimal. There are no admissions essays. No letters of recommendation are needed. The minimum GPA requirement is lower than that of a selective program, and there are exceptions available if a student does not meet the minimum GPA.

The coursework in for-profit, nonselective NP programs is also different. While turning in a poorly written paper in a nonprofit, selective NP course will get the student a quick referral to the writing lab with a mandatory re-write, the same poorly written paper in a nonselective NP course may earn the student an 'A.’ This would be less concerning if the instructors provided detailed feedback about the mistakes made and how to correct them. From what I have witnessed, these students either continue to make the same writing errors or rely on the 'copy' and 'paste' functions to complete their notes after they transition to clinical practice.

The exams in a for-profit, nonselective NP Program do not carry the same weighted grades as they do in selective NP programs. For example, a student can fail every proctored exam with a score as low as zero in a nonselective program and still pass the class with an 80%. In contrast, courses in a selective NP Program consist of exam scores only. NP courses in for-profit, nonselective programs are graded using an 80/20 ratio of assignments and exams, with exams making up only 20% of the total grade. It is not uncommon for students in these nonselective NP programs to fail (receive a score less than 80%) half or more of their exams and still go on to graduate.

What is surprising to me is that many intelligent and competent nurses intentionally choose for-profit, nonselective NP programs from a pool of higher quality, lower-cost programs. What is the appeal? Is it the simplicity of the admissions process? Are they intimidated by the competitive programs? Do they think the program will be too difficult?

An internet search for NP programs will produce several heavily advertised for-profit, nonselective programs. These schools allocate more money to marketing and recruitment efforts than they do to hiring and retaining well-qualified, experienced faculty. I find this highly concerning. The quality of the faculty may be the reason that some students are graduating from NP programs with subpar writing skills and enough clinical knowledge to pass the board exam but not much else. It is no wonder why most for-profit, nonselective schools provide high-priced, intense board review prep courses to all their NP students after graduation. Passing rates would surely decline without this provision.

Recruiters and employers seldomly know the difference in quality between NP programs, which I found highly frustrating. This could be good or bad, depending on the individual's education, skills, and abilities. This idea that all nurse practitioners are held to the same standard is both inaccurate and harmful. What that standard IS remains the concern. It is especially disappointing to share my degree - a degree that I hold in high esteem - with others who have poor reading and writing abilities.

Several articles have been published in the last two years questioning the quality of NP education. The perceived level of difficulty in nurse practitioner programs has been under fire, as physicians have been skeptical of the NP student's ability to be employed full-time while attending a full-time program. This criticism hurts us all, as it implies that NP programs have become too easy. While I take offense to this, I cannot say that this is entirely off-base. I attended a nonprofit, selective NP Program. My program was not easy in any aspect. No students were permitted to fail an exam without failing the class. My professors rarely awarded grades of 100% to ANY student on ANY assignment. Papers with grammar and punctuation errors were not accepted, let alone graded. There were approximately 36 students in my graduating class. In contrast, my friends were among a graduating class of more than 600.

I understand that nurse practitioners do not have to be high-performing academic scholars to be good providers. However, for-profit, nonselective schools may negatively impact our profession in the future. The reality is that nonselective NP programs are graduating far more nurse practitioners than selective programs. That is not surprising when you consider that nonprofit NP programs are competitive and have a low acceptance rate, while most for-profit NP programs have 90-100% acceptance rates. The for-profit, nonselective NP programs are not just attracting nurses with lower GPAs. Despite the comparatively higher cost of attendance, these programs attract nurses with high GPAs, as well. When the entry-level pay for nurse practitioners does not factor in the student's program, there is little incentive to attend a selective school that is historically more difficult and will require more effort. This negates the work of those of us graduating from reputable programs. This can and does affect NP entry-level salaries and negotiating power. This can damage the credibility of new nurse practitioners. This directly affects our campaign to obtain full practice authority in all states. This trend is something we need to put to an end.

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
3 minutes ago, nitenurse said:

Actually its not that number comes from the states' respective boards of nursing:image.thumb.png.402545c41d500cd5e66b05fe73d83f83.png

you can more than the minimum but that would have no bearing on licensing.

But minimum hours could affect credentialing.  A license is just the beginning to getting graduate training.

On 10/14/2022 at 9:14 AM, subee said:

Should we just make it a 50 hour requirement if a preceptorship has nothing to do with competence?  I'm not sure of the meaning of your post.  The average number of clinical hours required for CRNA's is around 9,300.  Do those hours have nothing to do with our clinical competence upon  graduation?  Are NP's so far apart from CRNA's that they need only a little more than 5% of the hours required by CRNA's?  Aren't NP's going to be asked to step up to even more decision making in the future?  Of course we have some excellent programs,  but IMHO we don't have enough of these.

The average number of clinical hours for CRNAs are a bit lower (9300 sounds closer to anesthesiologist), however, they do depend on the school:

image.thumb.png.a6631b283f9403b887e556441e489240.png

https://www.nursing.arizona.edu/academics/doctor-nursing-practice-DNP/specialties/nurse-anesthesia

https://www.aana.com/docs/default-source/practice-aana-com-web-documents-(all)/professional-practice-manual/standards-for-nurse-anesthesia-practice.pdf?sfvrsn=e00049b1_20

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
33 minutes ago, nitenurse said:

Remember Heather O'Rourke -the child from the Poltergeist? She went to the doctor with complaints of abdominal pain. The MD brushed it off and stated it was a stomach bug from well water. She was dead is less than a year due to intestinal stenosis. She too was young and relatively healthy right until she died. Mis-diagnoses can happen to any provider MD, NP or otherwise. This is why malpractice insurance cost as much as it does. So, there a lot of opinions stating that NP requirements should be higher but not a single person has posted what they should look like. .. . .

There are plenty of threads on this same topic on AN in addition to things suggested in this thread.  I'm guessing you don't work in rural care where nurses have always to stabilize patients in critical access hospitals.  It's not botox injections or passing pills.  

On 10/14/2022 at 8:58 AM, Tegridy said:

Its funny how those who have not done are the most eager to say other people's jobs are easy and don't require some level of expertise. Does not make sense how people who do a 160 hour rotation in, for example, pediatrics, then adult, then OB, can get certified to to see people across the life span. I mean I did like 200 hours of anesthesiology in residency. Can I do anesthesia? LOL no, not enough time.

You could if you were just doing colonoscopies. A lot of posters want to point the finger at the schools, however, its the boards of nursing that set the standards. So, if the board says 200 hours are enough to be an CRNA, then what?

Specializes in CEN, Firefighter/Paramedic.
2 hours ago, Numenor said:

Listen to people who have done this. You guys are missing the forest through the trees. NP education, admissions and boards are objectively inadequate.

This isn’t an online education debate. The bar for being a medical provider is much much higher.

All those med students will have 3 board exams minimum and thousands and thousands of clinical hours with constant evaluation. NPs do not.

 

I’m not sure why you’re dragging me into your never ending “you’ve not been in my shoes so you don’t get an opinion” crusade that spans multiple threads, but I was merely responding to someone who chose to focus on online coursework as being the principal problem.

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
5 minutes ago, nitenurse said:

The Council of Accreditation determines the minimum clinical hours required to graduate.  After the classroom prerequisites, it is all anesthesia 5 days a week (plus call) until you graduate.  Of course, we need many times more NP's than than CRNA's so that model couldn't produce unless the government gets serious and provides interest free loans to experienced RN's to get them through school.  The way we pay physicians will never encourage medical students to choose primary care so we need to get the mid levels for stepping up to the plate.

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
12 minutes ago, nitenurse said:

You could if you were just doing colonoscopies. A lot of posters want to point the finger at the schools, however, its the boards of nursing that set the standards. So, if the board says 200 hours are enough to be an CRNA, then what?

The Board does NOT determine how CRNA's are credentialed.  Can't work unless you are credentialed by AANA.

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
53 minutes ago, nitenurse said:

That position would make sense if all bikes were the same with differentiation for age or gender. Tricycle manufacturers make their product for a specific population. The folks that make bikes for kids, make them for children so forth and so on. NPs have a specific population that they are trained to see, however, the consensus is although they don't paid like MDs they need to be trained like one.

No one has suggested that NP's need to go to med school but we can't keep foisting inexperienced, poorly educated people out on the market.  People will start hiring PA's because the upfront culling process eliminates the weaker students.  And those employers will be looking at the difference in clinical education.  They want more bang for their buck like everyone else.

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
40 minutes ago, nitenurse said:

I just realized that the Aana adds the years of ICU experience to clinical hours which is misleading.  The 2500 hours for clinical anesthesia hours only counts to time spent in the chair in the OR attached to the particular required case you are doing.  However that does not count the other hours you are cruising around the hospital seeing pre ops, post ops, call room time etc.  We are not allowed to count that is clinical hours because only case time counts.  Residents can count all the hours they are in the house as clinical time so they are over represented and we are under represented in comparison.  Also, we have to get hours in trauma and ICU even though most of us do bread and butter during the daytime hours.  When I was a new grad I had to work alone without an MDA after two weeks.  And that included plenty of big cases after hours when the MDA's were snug in bed.  It was incredibly stressful but that's what we signed up for.  Our little specialty has a limited scope.  But I always thought that NP's had to know just as much as we did, especially when they are working alone in areas without a lot of backup.  IMHO, their education should be different, but commiserate.  

Specializes in Former NP now Internal medicine PGY-3.
4 hours ago, Numenor said:

Listen to people who have done this. You guys are missing the forest through the trees. NP education, admissions and boards are objectively inadequate.

This isn’t an online education debate. The bar for being a medical provider is much much higher.

All those med students will have 3 board exams minimum and thousands and thousands of clinical hours with constant evaluation. NPs do not.

 

Yeah the lecture part is fine online but still had a lot of labs. I never went to class unless it was a lab. Still have to pass all the tests. Whether or not lectures are in person doesn’t matter. It’s the exams and labs and clinical hours that matter. 

Specializes in Former NP now Internal medicine PGY-3.
2 hours ago, nitenurse said:

You could if you were just doing colonoscopies. A lot of posters want to point the finger at the schools, however, its the boards of nursing that set the standards. So, if the board says 200 hours are enough to be an CRNA, then what?

Maybe an elective one on a healthy person but I’ve seen them go bad even. Egd can be terrible in the wrong patient

2 hours ago, subee said:

I just realized that the Aana adds the years of ICU experience to clinical hours which is misleading.  The 2500 hours for clinical anesthesia hours only counts to time spent in the chair in the OR attached to the particular required case you are doing.  However that does not count the other hours you are cruising around the hospital seeing pre ops, post ops, call room time etc.  We are not allowed to count that is clinical hours because only case time counts.  Residents can count all the hours they are in the house as clinical time so they are over represented and we are under represented in comparison.  Also, we have to get hours in trauma and ICU even though most of us do bread and butter during the daytime hours.  When I was a new grad I had to work alone without an MDA after two weeks.  And that included plenty of big cases after hours when the MDA's were snug in bed.  It was incredibly stressful but that's what we signed up for.  Our little specialty has a limited scope.  But I always thought that NP's had to know just as much as we did, especially when they are working alone in areas without a lot of backup.  IMHO, their education should be different, but commiserate.  

Maybe but the scope of practice between the two are vastly different. Increasing the amount of hours and education defeats the purpose and point of a mid-level practitioner.