Multiple Certification Bodies - how did we get here?

Yes, I would like to see it paired down to two bodies, AACN for acute care along with ANCC for acute care and everything else. This would make it comparable to our physician colleagues, who also have two certifying bodies - for MD/DO (residencies and fellowships, for example).

4 hours ago, juan de la cruz said:

Obviously we don't yet have specialty boards for FNP, AGNP, and PMHNP but I think those should be established as individual governing boards for certification.  Other APRN boards have that model already (CRNA = NBCRNA, CNM = AMCB).

...AANPCB does exist, and covers FNP and AGNP

As for the rest of your post, it doesn't address the historical process that led up to how things got to be the way they are today.  I'm not yet interested in why, I want to start with how.

There's no specific reason why there are multiple certifying organizations. The fact is that anyone can start up a certification organization provided that the organization has the reputation that employers, professional communities, BONs collectively recognize.

History has nothing to do with it. Perhaps AANPCB or PNCB think they can do a better job validating NPs' skills via their own certification exams. There might a demand from NPs to have exams offered by their professional organizations. You can email them and ask.

On 11/21/2020 at 9:05 AM, juan de la cruz said:

I think the best scenario would be to strip ANCC and AANP from the role of board certification and allow specialty nursing boards to establish individual exams. 

^^ 100% agreed! After years of complaints, ANCC made changes to the PMHNP exam late last year. But I still think it's a joke and reflects little of what's needed for the job.

Competition is good. Keep all the bodies.
Just look at the huge amount of strife in the CRNA world. CRNAs only have one body and it's not good.

On 2/21/2021 at 5:27 PM, nomadcrna said:

Just look at the huge amount of strife in the CRNA world. CRNAs only have one body and it's not good.

I'm not familiar with said CRNA strife - care to elaborate on what it is and how it's related to having only one certifying body?

On 2/21/2021 at 5:27 PM, nomadcrna said:

Competition is good. Keep all the bodies.
Just look at the huge amount of strife in the CRNA world. CRNAs only have one body and it's not good.

But CRNA's, IMHO, have the most stringent (and rightly so) requirements of all the advanced specialties.  I don't know that competition amongst certifying bodies would be "good."  We seem to be the group best prepared to perform in the real world.  Another certifying body would surely dilute the requirements, create a lack of consensus about standards and undoubtedly, charge less money to keep the members rolling in.  Yes, we have issues with our certifying board but it's easier to control only 1 certifying body than many.  Do I agree with the new CE requirements?  NO.  But if we could get enough members interested enough to morph the NBCRNA into something more user friendly, let's do it.