- Email: [email protected]
Sustaining Regional Preceptor Partnerships: Preceptor Incentive Survey
BY FACULTY FOR FACULTY
Sustaining Regional Preceptor Partnerships: Preceptor Incentive Survey Michelle Morgan, DNP, ANP-BC, Melanie Brewer, DNSc, FNP-BC, FAANP, Francine Buchhalter, MBA, Cathy Collette, BA, and Devyn Parrott, MHI, BA ABSTRACT
Sustaining increased enrollment and graduation rates of advanced practice registered nursing students during participation in the Graduate Nurse Education demonstration project was paramount. In an effort to maintain clinical and academic partnerships, the Graduate Nurse Education collaborative in Arizona surveyed the participating preceptors, developed innovative clinical training models, and offered preceptor advancement courses in addition to the traditional incentives for precepting. This education brief describes the findings of a preceptor incentive survey and the innovative achievements of the academic and clinical partners. Keywords: advanced practice registered nursing students, Graduate Nurse Education, precepting, preceptors Ó 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
T
he American Association of Colleges of Nursing indicated that 13,198 qualified master’s applicants were denied admission because of a lack of sufficient resources such as faculty, preceptors, and clinical training sites.1 This preceptor incentive survey was developed to understand the motivation for clinically training advanced practice registered nursing (APRN) students and to use data to form sustainable partnerships between academic partners and preceptors. BACKGROUND
In 2012, 5 hospital sites nationally were invited to participate in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Graduate Nurse Education demonstration project. The project was designed to increase the number of APRNs who provide care to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. Nationally, the APRN programs included in the project were nurse practitioner (NP), clinical nurse specialist, certified nurse midwife, and certified registered nurse anesthetist students. The local goal of the project was to increase the number of advanced practice providers in primary care, with a secondary goal of increasing the workforce numbers in health care provider shortage areas and medically underserved areas. The local hospital site partnered with 4 academic partners; the project www.npjournal.org
included NP students in family, acute care, adultgerontology; family psychiatric mental health; pediatric; and adult-gerontology clinical nurse specialist programs. Both nationally and locally, there was significant competition among graduate health care education students for training sites. In this region, there are 4 medical schools, multiple graduate schools of nursing, and physician assistant programs. Graduate students from these programs compete for clinical training hours with the same pool of available preceptors. Therefore, the schools are constantly recruiting qualified preceptors and faculty to support the evergrowing enrollment of graduate health care students. The participating academic partners currently have over 1,800 partnered clinical training sites. The number of enrolled students in 2016, the fourth year of the project, was 935, a 500% increase over the 175 total number of students enrolled before the beginning of the project in 2012 (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services audited data, 2012-2016). PROBLEM STATEMENT
Recruiting and retaining preceptors were major challenges of the project. Our academic partners had traditionally offered incentives to preceptors in the form of access to academic libraries, adjunct faculty status, and certificates of appreciation for preceptor The Journal for Nurse Practitioners - JNP
e1
hours as an acknowledgment of appreciation for precepting students, all with varying degrees of success in the retention of preceptors. Published articles from 2010 to 2017 were reviewed to explore the incentives and barriers to precepting APRN students.2-4 A survey of 453 preceptors found that professional obligation, recertification, level of confidence in teaching, access to academic resources, adjunct affiliations, and remuneration were incentives to precept.4 The study found that decreased productivity and insufficient time to teach were deterrents to precepting. The regional project team developed a preceptor incentive survey using terms identified in previous research to identify motivation for precepting and to gauge the best methods for postproject sustainability. The academic partners developed courses and Web-based education for both experienced and new preceptors. Development and Implementation of the Preceptor Incentive Survey
In fall 2015, a survey was developed and sent to the preceptors from all of the academic partners. Over 3 semesters, 600 surveys were distributed, and 165 were returned for a 21% return rate. The survey was voluntary and anonymous. Preceptors had the opportunity to identify themselves and provide contact information for future invitations to faculty development courses; however, no demographic data were requested. The survey was administered to gain information on incentives and barriers to precepting with the intent to formulate a plan for sustaining the established partnerships for clinical training. RESULTS
Of the 165 responses from physicians and NPs who precept, not all of the questions on the survey were answered, and some of the questions had the option for the respondent to choose multiple answers. Therefore, not all questions had a total of 165 answers. The survey had 5 questions and the option to provide name and e-mail to invite them to future preceptor development courses. The survey is provided in the Supplementary Appendix (available online at http://www.npjournal.org). Table 1 represents the school of enrollment for APRN e2
The Journal for Nurse Practitioners - JNP
Table 1. Precepted Students’ Enrolled Colleges Frequency (N ¼ 161)
Percentage
School A
103
63.98
School B
73
45.34
School C
49
30.43
School D
38
23.60
56
34.78
School
a
Other
Preceptors chose all that applied and then had the opportunity to identify “other” schools of nursing. Preceptors were asked to choose all that apply; therefore, percentages do not equal 100. a
The University of Phoenix was 46% of the “other” category.
students during clinical training; the preceptors chose all the schools that applied. In the other category, the respondents wrote in the text box all the other schools for which they precept; 46.23% of the other responses were that they precepted students enrolled in online programs at the University of Phoenix. The local University of Phoenix had an average of 200 NP students at the time of the survey.5 Incentives
The literature illustrates remuneration, or a stipend, for clinically training students is an incentive for precepting.4 The survey asked for the preceptors to rank 6 incentives and a free-text category of other in order of importance. Tier 1 represents the incentive that was most frequently ranked as the number by the respondents. The results of the rank-ordered incentives are listed with frequencies and percentages in Table 2. Tier 1 represents how often the incentive was ranked number 1 preference by the preceptors. The preceptors’ level of confidence in their ability to precept, teach, and evaluate was ranked most frequently in the first tier (36.36%, n ¼ 165). The second incentive in tier 1 was a sense of professional obligation (24.85%). Remuneration was ranked third in tier 1 (13.94%). Of the free-text responses for the other category of incentives, 9 respondents indicated they precepted because they “love to teach”; 3 indicated precepting is a tool for recruitment, training, and hiring; and others noted precepting keeps them current and ensures they are fulfilling their professional obligation to provide quality trained and educated APRNs for the future of health care. Volume 14, Issue 1, January 2018
Table 2. Preceptor Incentive Preference Rankings (N [ 165) Incentive Rank by Tiera
Tier 1 n (%)
Tier 2 n (%)
Tier 3 n (%)
Tier 4 n (%)
Tier 5 n (%)
Tier 6 n (%)
Tier 7 n (%)
Level of confidence
60 (36)
28 (17)
22 (13)
19 (12)
9 (5)
24 (15)
3 (2)
Professional obligation
41 (25)
33 (20)
28 (17)
30 (18)
21 (13)
12 (7)
0 (0)
Remuneration
23 (14)
15 (9)
25 (15)
32 (19)
35 (21)
31 (19)
4 (2)
Other
10 (6)
1 (1)
4 (2)
1 (1)
2 (1)
3 (2)
144 (87)
Library/faculty development access
8 (5)
22 (13)
32 (19)
31 (19)
39 (24)
31 (19)
2 (1)
Academic affiliation
5 (3)
23 (14)
30 (18)
32 (19)
36 (22)
35 (21)
4 (2)
b
Surveys were distributed after fall, spring, and summer semesters to preceptors who trained Graduate Nurse Educationedesignated students. a Tier represents incentives ranked in order of preference for the sample. b The preceptors were asked to rank in order of personal preference their incentives for precepting and were provided an opportunity for identifying other incentives.
Barriers
The next question on the survey reviewed perceived barriers consistent with those found in the literature.4 The respondents could choose multiple barriers and/ or open responses. Decreased productivity (59.63%) and adequate teaching time (54.66%) were the most significant barriers reported. The majority (60%) of the 46 respondents who entered open responses stated there were “no barriers” or “none” to precepting. The second highest open responses were attributed to electronic “medical records slowing patient flow” and “preceptor and student work.” One preceptor noted the students’ lack of Spanish language skills as a barrier to precepting. The Figure shows the percentages of barriers for the respondents. Commitment to Continue Precepting
The final survey question asked the percentage of commitment to precept upon completion of the project. Seventy-five percent of the respondents were committed to precepting APRN students, implying remuneration was not a priority incentive. The
Figure. Barriers to precepting.
minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation of the responses to this question are provided in Table 3. DISCUSSION
The results were analyzed with the goal of developing a plan to sustain the academic programs’ preceptor partnerships. The majority of the respondents precept because they have a strong affinity to teaching and believe in their abilities to precept. Others stated a sense of professional obligation. Remuneration was the third most important incentive; however, 75% of the respondents plan to continue to precept once the federally funded project is complete and there is no further guarantee of stipends for training. The barriers were decreased production and inadequate time for teaching. Innovations
During the project, the academic partners had to recruit and retain large numbers of clinical sites and preceptors. Over 1,800 clinical sites partnered with the 4 academic partners by the end of the fourth year of the project. The academic partners engaged in discussions early in the project regarding methods to sustain these
Table 3. Percentage of Commitment to Precept Field
Standard Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation Count
Percentage 2.00a a
www.npjournal.org
100
74.59 26.91
163
The 2% was likely meant to be a 0 percentage.
The Journal for Nurse Practitioners - JNP
e3
clinical partnerships. In addition to the traditional offerings of access to academic libraries and adjunct faculty status, innovative clinical training models and preceptor training courses were developed; preceptor courses included a 1-hour didactic course and Webbased education in the form of vignettes and tool kits of best practice examples for precepting APRN students. Simulation experiences with standardized patients were added to curricula to better prepare students before the initiation of their first clinical training experience. Another goal of the Graduate Nurse Education project was to increase interprofessional education and clinical experiences for APRN students. Interprofessional objective structured clinical examinations were developed using a curriculum that included NP students, social work students, and standardized patients to expose students to a team-based approach to patient care. An interprofessional preceptor tool kit using clinical vignettes to standardize the approach to clinically training students at all education levels was created and made available on an Internet site for the preceptors of the academic partners and their faculty with over 700 hits to date. A Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Actecompliant virtual and synchronous platform was developed for clinical faculty to evaluate distance NP students. A 12-hour continuing education credit online course on motivational interviewing and coaching was developed for preceptors and students, with 34 completed participants and newly enrolled at the time of the writing of this document. In summary, clinical partnerships were formed with opportunities for unique training in rural telehealth medicine and learning environments supporting interprofessional education and team-based care. The aforementioned programs represent a sample of the innovative clinical training opportunities the academic and clinical partners formulated in response to the increased enrollment of APRN students.
increase evaluation skills and reduce potential deterrents to precept. For the future, it is important to continue to survey preceptors to determine what drives them to precept and what deters them from precepting. As health care delivery and reimbursement systems change, preceptors’ commitment and challenges may change. Intermittent surveys to preceptors are 1 way of ongoing communication to allow early identification of any issues in order to maintain and grow professional partnerships.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Acknowledgments The authors would like to take this opportunity to recognize and thank our preceptors for their hours of dedication to our advanced practice nursing students and future advanced practice providers.
New APRN preceptors are recruited by each college from their own graduates as well as the community. Role modeling evaluation to advanced practice students to develop education plans and to deliver positive and constructive criticism enables APRNs to be confident, future preceptors. This education will e4
The Journal for Nurse Practitioners - JNP
SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
Supplementary tables associated with this article can be found in the online version at https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.nurpra.2017.08.013. References 1. American Association of Colleges of Nursing. New AACN data show an enrollment surge in baccalaureate and graduate programs amid calls for more highly educated nurse. 2012. http://www.aacn.nche.edu/news/articles/2012 /enrollment-data. Accessed March 7, 2017. 2. Logan B, Kovacs K, Barry T. Precepting nurse practitioner students: One medical center’s efforts to improve the precepting process. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2015;27(12):676-682. 3. Miller J, Kennedy O. Barriers and incentives to precepting nurse practitioner students in a pediatric facility. J Pediatr Health Care. 2016;30(4):302-303. 4. Webb J, Lopez R, Guarino A. Incentives and barriers to precepting nurse practitioner students. J Nurse Pract. 2015;11(8):782-789. 5. University of Phoenix. Academic annual report. 2014. http://www.phoenix.edu /content/dam/altcloud/doc/about_uopx/academic-annual-report-2014.pdf. Accessed March 7, 2017.
All authors are affiliated with the Graduate Nurse Education demonstration project at Honor Health in Scottsdale, AZ. Michelle Morgan, DNP, ANP-BC, is the nurse practitioner clinical liaison for the project. She is available at Michelle. [email protected]. Melanie Brewer, DNSc, FNPBC, FAANP, is the executive director of the project and the interim chief nursing officer of the Center for Nursing Excellence and the network director of nursing research. Francine Buchhalter, MBA, is the director of the project. Cathy Collette, BA, is the quality analyst and contract specialist on the project. Devyn Parrott, MHI, BA, is the project coordinator. In compliance with national ethical guidelines, the authors report no relationship with business or industry that would pose a conflict of interest.
1555-4155/17/$ see front matter © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nurpra.2017.08.013
Volume 14, Issue 1, January 2018
Sustaining Regional Preceptor Partnerships: Preceptor Incentive Survey Michelle Morgan, DNP, ANP-BC, Melanie Brewer, DNSc, FNP-BC, FAANP, Francine Buchhalter, MBA, Cathy Collette, BA, and Devyn Parrott, MHI, BA ABSTRACT
Sustaining increased enrollment and graduation rates of advanced practice registered nursing students during participation in the Graduate Nurse Education demonstration project was paramount. In an effort to maintain clinical and academic partnerships, the Graduate Nurse Education collaborative in Arizona surveyed the participating preceptors, developed innovative clinical training models, and offered preceptor advancement courses in addition to the traditional incentives for precepting. This education brief describes the findings of a preceptor incentive survey and the innovative achievements of the academic and clinical partners. Keywords: advanced practice registered nursing students, Graduate Nurse Education, precepting, preceptors Ó 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
T
he American Association of Colleges of Nursing indicated that 13,198 qualified master’s applicants were denied admission because of a lack of sufficient resources such as faculty, preceptors, and clinical training sites.1 This preceptor incentive survey was developed to understand the motivation for clinically training advanced practice registered nursing (APRN) students and to use data to form sustainable partnerships between academic partners and preceptors. BACKGROUND
In 2012, 5 hospital sites nationally were invited to participate in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Graduate Nurse Education demonstration project. The project was designed to increase the number of APRNs who provide care to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. Nationally, the APRN programs included in the project were nurse practitioner (NP), clinical nurse specialist, certified nurse midwife, and certified registered nurse anesthetist students. The local goal of the project was to increase the number of advanced practice providers in primary care, with a secondary goal of increasing the workforce numbers in health care provider shortage areas and medically underserved areas. The local hospital site partnered with 4 academic partners; the project www.npjournal.org
included NP students in family, acute care, adultgerontology; family psychiatric mental health; pediatric; and adult-gerontology clinical nurse specialist programs. Both nationally and locally, there was significant competition among graduate health care education students for training sites. In this region, there are 4 medical schools, multiple graduate schools of nursing, and physician assistant programs. Graduate students from these programs compete for clinical training hours with the same pool of available preceptors. Therefore, the schools are constantly recruiting qualified preceptors and faculty to support the evergrowing enrollment of graduate health care students. The participating academic partners currently have over 1,800 partnered clinical training sites. The number of enrolled students in 2016, the fourth year of the project, was 935, a 500% increase over the 175 total number of students enrolled before the beginning of the project in 2012 (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services audited data, 2012-2016). PROBLEM STATEMENT
Recruiting and retaining preceptors were major challenges of the project. Our academic partners had traditionally offered incentives to preceptors in the form of access to academic libraries, adjunct faculty status, and certificates of appreciation for preceptor The Journal for Nurse Practitioners - JNP
e1
hours as an acknowledgment of appreciation for precepting students, all with varying degrees of success in the retention of preceptors. Published articles from 2010 to 2017 were reviewed to explore the incentives and barriers to precepting APRN students.2-4 A survey of 453 preceptors found that professional obligation, recertification, level of confidence in teaching, access to academic resources, adjunct affiliations, and remuneration were incentives to precept.4 The study found that decreased productivity and insufficient time to teach were deterrents to precepting. The regional project team developed a preceptor incentive survey using terms identified in previous research to identify motivation for precepting and to gauge the best methods for postproject sustainability. The academic partners developed courses and Web-based education for both experienced and new preceptors. Development and Implementation of the Preceptor Incentive Survey
In fall 2015, a survey was developed and sent to the preceptors from all of the academic partners. Over 3 semesters, 600 surveys were distributed, and 165 were returned for a 21% return rate. The survey was voluntary and anonymous. Preceptors had the opportunity to identify themselves and provide contact information for future invitations to faculty development courses; however, no demographic data were requested. The survey was administered to gain information on incentives and barriers to precepting with the intent to formulate a plan for sustaining the established partnerships for clinical training. RESULTS
Of the 165 responses from physicians and NPs who precept, not all of the questions on the survey were answered, and some of the questions had the option for the respondent to choose multiple answers. Therefore, not all questions had a total of 165 answers. The survey had 5 questions and the option to provide name and e-mail to invite them to future preceptor development courses. The survey is provided in the Supplementary Appendix (available online at http://www.npjournal.org). Table 1 represents the school of enrollment for APRN e2
The Journal for Nurse Practitioners - JNP
Table 1. Precepted Students’ Enrolled Colleges Frequency (N ¼ 161)
Percentage
School A
103
63.98
School B
73
45.34
School C
49
30.43
School D
38
23.60
56
34.78
School
a
Other
Preceptors chose all that applied and then had the opportunity to identify “other” schools of nursing. Preceptors were asked to choose all that apply; therefore, percentages do not equal 100. a
The University of Phoenix was 46% of the “other” category.
students during clinical training; the preceptors chose all the schools that applied. In the other category, the respondents wrote in the text box all the other schools for which they precept; 46.23% of the other responses were that they precepted students enrolled in online programs at the University of Phoenix. The local University of Phoenix had an average of 200 NP students at the time of the survey.5 Incentives
The literature illustrates remuneration, or a stipend, for clinically training students is an incentive for precepting.4 The survey asked for the preceptors to rank 6 incentives and a free-text category of other in order of importance. Tier 1 represents the incentive that was most frequently ranked as the number by the respondents. The results of the rank-ordered incentives are listed with frequencies and percentages in Table 2. Tier 1 represents how often the incentive was ranked number 1 preference by the preceptors. The preceptors’ level of confidence in their ability to precept, teach, and evaluate was ranked most frequently in the first tier (36.36%, n ¼ 165). The second incentive in tier 1 was a sense of professional obligation (24.85%). Remuneration was ranked third in tier 1 (13.94%). Of the free-text responses for the other category of incentives, 9 respondents indicated they precepted because they “love to teach”; 3 indicated precepting is a tool for recruitment, training, and hiring; and others noted precepting keeps them current and ensures they are fulfilling their professional obligation to provide quality trained and educated APRNs for the future of health care. Volume 14, Issue 1, January 2018
Table 2. Preceptor Incentive Preference Rankings (N [ 165) Incentive Rank by Tiera
Tier 1 n (%)
Tier 2 n (%)
Tier 3 n (%)
Tier 4 n (%)
Tier 5 n (%)
Tier 6 n (%)
Tier 7 n (%)
Level of confidence
60 (36)
28 (17)
22 (13)
19 (12)
9 (5)
24 (15)
3 (2)
Professional obligation
41 (25)
33 (20)
28 (17)
30 (18)
21 (13)
12 (7)
0 (0)
Remuneration
23 (14)
15 (9)
25 (15)
32 (19)
35 (21)
31 (19)
4 (2)
Other
10 (6)
1 (1)
4 (2)
1 (1)
2 (1)
3 (2)
144 (87)
Library/faculty development access
8 (5)
22 (13)
32 (19)
31 (19)
39 (24)
31 (19)
2 (1)
Academic affiliation
5 (3)
23 (14)
30 (18)
32 (19)
36 (22)
35 (21)
4 (2)
b
Surveys were distributed after fall, spring, and summer semesters to preceptors who trained Graduate Nurse Educationedesignated students. a Tier represents incentives ranked in order of preference for the sample. b The preceptors were asked to rank in order of personal preference their incentives for precepting and were provided an opportunity for identifying other incentives.
Barriers
The next question on the survey reviewed perceived barriers consistent with those found in the literature.4 The respondents could choose multiple barriers and/ or open responses. Decreased productivity (59.63%) and adequate teaching time (54.66%) were the most significant barriers reported. The majority (60%) of the 46 respondents who entered open responses stated there were “no barriers” or “none” to precepting. The second highest open responses were attributed to electronic “medical records slowing patient flow” and “preceptor and student work.” One preceptor noted the students’ lack of Spanish language skills as a barrier to precepting. The Figure shows the percentages of barriers for the respondents. Commitment to Continue Precepting
The final survey question asked the percentage of commitment to precept upon completion of the project. Seventy-five percent of the respondents were committed to precepting APRN students, implying remuneration was not a priority incentive. The
Figure. Barriers to precepting.
minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation of the responses to this question are provided in Table 3. DISCUSSION
The results were analyzed with the goal of developing a plan to sustain the academic programs’ preceptor partnerships. The majority of the respondents precept because they have a strong affinity to teaching and believe in their abilities to precept. Others stated a sense of professional obligation. Remuneration was the third most important incentive; however, 75% of the respondents plan to continue to precept once the federally funded project is complete and there is no further guarantee of stipends for training. The barriers were decreased production and inadequate time for teaching. Innovations
During the project, the academic partners had to recruit and retain large numbers of clinical sites and preceptors. Over 1,800 clinical sites partnered with the 4 academic partners by the end of the fourth year of the project. The academic partners engaged in discussions early in the project regarding methods to sustain these
Table 3. Percentage of Commitment to Precept Field
Standard Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation Count
Percentage 2.00a a
www.npjournal.org
100
74.59 26.91
163
The 2% was likely meant to be a 0 percentage.
The Journal for Nurse Practitioners - JNP
e3
clinical partnerships. In addition to the traditional offerings of access to academic libraries and adjunct faculty status, innovative clinical training models and preceptor training courses were developed; preceptor courses included a 1-hour didactic course and Webbased education in the form of vignettes and tool kits of best practice examples for precepting APRN students. Simulation experiences with standardized patients were added to curricula to better prepare students before the initiation of their first clinical training experience. Another goal of the Graduate Nurse Education project was to increase interprofessional education and clinical experiences for APRN students. Interprofessional objective structured clinical examinations were developed using a curriculum that included NP students, social work students, and standardized patients to expose students to a team-based approach to patient care. An interprofessional preceptor tool kit using clinical vignettes to standardize the approach to clinically training students at all education levels was created and made available on an Internet site for the preceptors of the academic partners and their faculty with over 700 hits to date. A Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Actecompliant virtual and synchronous platform was developed for clinical faculty to evaluate distance NP students. A 12-hour continuing education credit online course on motivational interviewing and coaching was developed for preceptors and students, with 34 completed participants and newly enrolled at the time of the writing of this document. In summary, clinical partnerships were formed with opportunities for unique training in rural telehealth medicine and learning environments supporting interprofessional education and team-based care. The aforementioned programs represent a sample of the innovative clinical training opportunities the academic and clinical partners formulated in response to the increased enrollment of APRN students.
increase evaluation skills and reduce potential deterrents to precept. For the future, it is important to continue to survey preceptors to determine what drives them to precept and what deters them from precepting. As health care delivery and reimbursement systems change, preceptors’ commitment and challenges may change. Intermittent surveys to preceptors are 1 way of ongoing communication to allow early identification of any issues in order to maintain and grow professional partnerships.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Acknowledgments The authors would like to take this opportunity to recognize and thank our preceptors for their hours of dedication to our advanced practice nursing students and future advanced practice providers.
New APRN preceptors are recruited by each college from their own graduates as well as the community. Role modeling evaluation to advanced practice students to develop education plans and to deliver positive and constructive criticism enables APRNs to be confident, future preceptors. This education will e4
The Journal for Nurse Practitioners - JNP
SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
Supplementary tables associated with this article can be found in the online version at https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.nurpra.2017.08.013. References 1. American Association of Colleges of Nursing. New AACN data show an enrollment surge in baccalaureate and graduate programs amid calls for more highly educated nurse. 2012. http://www.aacn.nche.edu/news/articles/2012 /enrollment-data. Accessed March 7, 2017. 2. Logan B, Kovacs K, Barry T. Precepting nurse practitioner students: One medical center’s efforts to improve the precepting process. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2015;27(12):676-682. 3. Miller J, Kennedy O. Barriers and incentives to precepting nurse practitioner students in a pediatric facility. J Pediatr Health Care. 2016;30(4):302-303. 4. Webb J, Lopez R, Guarino A. Incentives and barriers to precepting nurse practitioner students. J Nurse Pract. 2015;11(8):782-789. 5. University of Phoenix. Academic annual report. 2014. http://www.phoenix.edu /content/dam/altcloud/doc/about_uopx/academic-annual-report-2014.pdf. Accessed March 7, 2017.
All authors are affiliated with the Graduate Nurse Education demonstration project at Honor Health in Scottsdale, AZ. Michelle Morgan, DNP, ANP-BC, is the nurse practitioner clinical liaison for the project. She is available at Michelle. [email protected]. Melanie Brewer, DNSc, FNPBC, FAANP, is the executive director of the project and the interim chief nursing officer of the Center for Nursing Excellence and the network director of nursing research. Francine Buchhalter, MBA, is the director of the project. Cathy Collette, BA, is the quality analyst and contract specialist on the project. Devyn Parrott, MHI, BA, is the project coordinator. In compliance with national ethical guidelines, the authors report no relationship with business or industry that would pose a conflict of interest.
1555-4155/17/$ see front matter © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nurpra.2017.08.013
Volume 14, Issue 1, January 2018