Multiple Certification Bodies - how did we get here?

Advanced Practice Columnist / Guide · Nov 21, 2020

I blame free enterprise, a lack of unity, and borderline poor ethical standards. Certification boards are business entities that generate income. I question the fact that ANCC is an arm of ANA.

Free enterprise because the US capitalist model just allows it.

Lack of unity, which I find inherent in nursing, because we have an array of disjointed organizations all battling for the same thing or things that overlap each other.

Borderline poor ethical standards because why would an association that represents nurses also make a business of certifying them like ANCC does?(ANCC is an arm of the ANA). AMA does not control the board certification for the physician specialties.

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. For instance:

AACN for AGACNP
PNCB for PNP-AC and PNP-PC
NCC for WHNP and NNP

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).

Neuro Guy NP, DNP, PhD, APRN · Nov 21, 2020

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).

Advanced Practice Columnist / Guide · Nov 21, 2020

If you want historical perspective, I can only speak for us Acute Care NP's in the adult side. Back in the 1990's, as the Adult Acute Care NP role was stating to be established (an offshoot of the adult CNS role), ANCC asked AACN (American Association of Critical Care Nurses) to help establish a board exam for ACNP. For years, this test was jointly developed by both ANCC and AACN. At some point, AACN stopped becoming part of the exam and it became solely an ANCC effort. In the mid 2000's AACN decided to develop an Adult ACNP exam separate from ANCC so now we have two.

TheSquire, DNP, APRN, NP · Nov 21, 2020

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.

umbdude, MSN, APRN · Nov 30, 2020

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.

umbdude, MSN, APRN · Nov 30, 2020

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.

Advanced Practice Columnist / Guide · Nov 30, 2020

Just now, umbdude said:

^^ 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.

They also watered down the recertification requirements presumably to allow faculty (some of whom are not in active practice) to recertify without practice hours.

nomadcrna, DNP, CRNA, NP · Feb 21, 2021

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.

TheSquire, DNP, APRN, NP · Feb 26, 2021

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?

subee, MSN, CRNA · Mar 13, 2021

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.