Commission Actions – September 2021

Notification of Commission Actions
Spring 2021 Accreditation Cycle

The following publicly available information is provided by the Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing (ACEN) concerning the accreditation status of the following programs reviewed by the ACEN Board of Commissioners during its meeting in September 2021. Commission staff will not speculate on what decision might be made by the ACEN Board of Commissioners the next time a program is reviewed. For additional information regarding ACEN accreditation process, access the Accreditation Manual at https://www.acenursing.org/resources-for-nursing-programs/resources-acen-accreditation-manual/

Access the ACEN 2017 Standards and Criteria by program type:

Initial and Continuing Accreditation Actions


Additional InformationInitial Accreditation

The Commission granted initial accreditation to the following programs:

  • Arapahoe Community College (Baccalaureate) Littleton, CO
  • Arnot Ogden Medical Center (Associate) Elmira, NY
  • College of Eastern Idaho (Associate) Idaho Falls, ID
  • Collin County Community College District (Baccalaureate) McKinney, TX
  • Duke Regional Hospital (Baccalaureate) Durham, NC
  • ECPI University – Manassas (Associate) Manassas, VA
  • ECPI University – Newport News (Associate) Newport News, VA
  • EDP University of Puerto Rico (Baccalaureate) San Juan, PR
  • FVI School of Nursing and Technology (Associate) Miramar, FL
  • Grove City College (Baccalaureate) Grove City, PA
  • Lake Area Technical College (Associate) Watertown, SD
  • Laredo College (Baccalaureate) Laredo, TX
  • Lone Star College – The Woodlands (Baccalaureate) Conroe, TX
  • New England Institute of Technology (Master’s) East Greenwich, RI
  • Riverside College of Health Careers (Baccalaureate) Newport News, VA
  • Southern Crescent Technical College (Associate) Griffin, GA
  • Southern Crescent Technical College (Practical) Griffin, GA
  • Southern Union State Community College(Practical) Opelika, AL
  • Universidad del Norte (Baccalaureate) Área Metropolitana Barranquilla, Atlántico, Colombia
  • University of North Georgia (Clinical Doctorate) Dahlonega, GA
  • University of the Cumberlands (Associate) Williamsburg, KY
  • West Virginia Junior College (Associate) Morgantown, WV
  • Wiregrass Georgia Technical College (Practical) Valdosta, GA

Additional InformationContinuing Accreditation

The Commission granted continuing accreditation to the following programs:

  • Augusta Technical College (Practical) Augusta, GA
  • Baton Rouge Medical Center (Diploma) Baton Rouge, LA
  • Bethune – Cookman University (Baccalaureate) Daytona Beach, FL
  • Blinn College (Associate) Bryan, TX
  • Bryant & Stratton College – Richmond (Associate) North Chesterfield, VA
  • Bryant & Stratton College – Richmond (Practical) North Chesterfield, VA
  • Catawba Valley Community College (Associate) Hickory, NC
  • Central Carolina Technical College (Associate) Sumter, SC
  • Chattahoochee Technical College (Associate) Dallas, GA
  • Clearfield County Career and Technology Center (Practical) Clearfield, PA
  • Eastern New Mexico University (Baccalaureate) Portales, NM
  • Eastern New Mexico University (Master’s) Portales, NM
  • EDP University of Puerto Rico (Associate) San Juan, PR
  • Galen College of Nursing – Cincinnati (Associate) Cincinnati, OH
  • Galen College of Nursing – Tampa Bay (Associate) St. Petersburg, FL
  • James A. Rhodes State College (Associate) Lima, OH
  • Kingsborough Community College of the City University of New York (Associate) Brooklyn, NY
  • Lake Area Technical College (Practical) Watertown, SD
  • Lake Michigan College (Associate) Benton Harbor, MI
  • Lawrence Memorial/Regis College Collaborative (Associate) Medford, MA
  • Lincoln Land Community College (Associate) Springfield, IL
  • Lincoln Technical Institute (Practical) Lincoln, RI
  • Louisiana State University at Alexandria (Associate) Alexandria, LA
  • Louisiana State University at Alexandria (Baccalaureate) Alexandria, LA
  • Louisiana Tech University (Associate) Ruston, LA
  • McLennan Community College (Associate) Waco, TX
  • Metropolitan State University of Denver (Baccalaureate) Denver, CO
  • Mississippi Delta Community College (Associate) Moorhead, MS
  • Mohawk Valley Community College (Associate) Utica, NY
  • Montana State University – Northern (Associate) Havre, MT
  • Montana State University – Northern (Baccalaureate) Havre, MT
  • New York City College of Technology (Baccalaureate) Brooklyn, NY
  • North Arkansas College (Associate) Harrison, AR
  • Northern Essex Community College (Associate) Lawrence, MA
  • Northern Essex Community College (Practical) Lawrence, MA
  • Pensacola State College (Associate) Pensacola, FL
  • Pueblo Community College (Associate) Pueblo, CO
  • Rasmussen University – Central Pasco (Associate) Odessa, FL
  • Rasmussen University – Central Pasco (Practical) Odessa, FL
  • River Valley Community College (Associate) Claremont, NH
  • Southern Union State Community College (Associate) Opelika, AL
  • SUNY Adirondack Community College (Associate) Queensbury, NY
  • University of North Georgia (Master’s/Post-Master’s Certificate(s)) Dahlonega, GA
  • Wayne Community College (Associate) Goldsboro, NC
  • Wayne Community College (Practical) Goldsboro, NC
  • Yakima Valley College (Associate) Yakima, WA
  • Yavapai College (Associate) Prescott, AZ

Additional InformationContinuing Accreditation – Remove Conditions Status

The Commission removed the conditions status and granted continuing accreditation after review of a follow-up report to the following programs:

  • Chipola College (Baccalaureate) Marianna, FL
  • Colorado Mesa University (Practical) Grand Junction, CO
  • Dalton State College (Associate) Dalton, GA
  • Dalton State College (Baccalaureate) Dalton, GA
  • Gardner – Webb University (Associate) Boiling Springs, NC
  • Gardner – Webb University (Baccalaureate) Boiling Springs, NC
  • Hillsborough Community College (Associate) Tampa, FL
  • Kentucky State University (Baccalaureate) Frankfort, KY
  • Marion Technical College (Associate) Marion, OH
  • Montana State University – Northern (Baccalaureate) Havre, MT
  • SUNY Broome Community College (Associate) Binghamton, NY
  • Technical College of the Lowcountry (Associate) Beaufort, SC

The Commission removed the conditions status and granted continuing accreditation after a follow-up visit to the following programs:

  • None

Additional InformationContinuing Accreditation – Remove Warning Status

The Commission removed the warning status and granted continuing accreditation after a follow-up visit to the following programs:

  • None

Additional InformationContinuing Accreditation – Remove Good Cause Status

The Commission removed the good cause status and granted continuing accreditation after a follow-up visit to the following programs:

  • Carrington College – Phoenix (Associate) Phoenix, AZ

Additional InformationAffirm Continuing Accreditation

The Commission affirmed continuing accreditation after a focused visit to the following programs:

  • EDP University of Puerto Rico (Associate) San Juan, PR
  • Franklin Pierce University (Master’s/Post-Master’s Certificate(s)) Manchester, NH
  • Lake Area Technical College (Practical) Watertown, SD
  • Mount Aloysius College (Baccalaureate) Cresson, PA
  • Rasmussen University – Central Pasco (Associate) Odessa, FL
  • Rasmussen University – Central Pasco (Practical) Odessa, FL
  • Rogers State University (Baccalaureate) Claremeore, OK

The Commission affirmed continuing accreditation after a verification visit to the following programs:

  • Bowie State University (Master’s/Post-Master’s Certificate(s)) Bowie, MD
  • Bryant & Stratton College – Richmond (Associate) North Chesterfield, VA
  • Bryant & Stratton College – Richmond (Practical) North Chesterfield, VA
  • Central Carolina Technical College (Associate) Sumter, SC
  • Chemeketa Community College (Associate) Salem, OR
  • Conemaugh Memorial Medical Center (Diploma) Johnstown, PA
  • FVI School of Nursing & Technology (Associate) Miramar, FL
  • Galen College of Nursing – Louisville (Associate) Louisville, KY
  • Galen College of Nursing – Tampa Bay (Associate) St. Petersburg, FL
  • Greenville Technical College (Associate) Greenville, SC
  • Lincoln Technical Institute (Practical) Lincoln, RI
  • New England Institute of Technology (Master’s) East Greenwich, RI
  • North Arkansas College (Associate) Harrison, AR
  • Riverside College of Health Careers (Baccalaureate) Newport News, VA
  • Salem City Schools (Practical) Salem, OH
  • Snow College (Associate) Richfield, UT
  • Southern Crescent Technical College (Associate) Griffin, GA
  • Southern Crescent Technical College (Practical) Griffin, GA
  • Southern Union State Community College (Associate) Opelika, AL
  • Southern Union State Community College (Practical) Opelika, AL
  • Tacoma Community College (Associate) Tacoma, WA
  • Trinitas School of Nursing/Union County College (Diploma) Elizabeth, NJ
  • Trinity Health – St. Francis Medical Center (Diploma) Trenton, NJ
  • University of Charleston (Associate) Charleston, WV
  • University of Charleston (Baccalaureate) Charleston, WV
  • University of North Georgia (Clinical Doctorate) Dahlonega, GA
  • University of North Georgia (Master’s/Post-Master’s Certificate(s)) Dahlonega, GA
  • West Virginia Junior College (Associate) Morgantown, WV

Additional InformationAffirm Continuing Accreditation – Remove Good Cause Status

The Commission removed the good cause status and granted continuing accreditation after a focused visit to the following programs:

  • None

Additional InformationContinuing Accreditation with Conditions

The Commission granted continuing accreditation with conditions to the following programs:

  • Bishop State Community College (Associate) Mobile, AL related to non-compliance with:
    • Standard 6 Outcomes, Criteria 6.1 and 6.2
      • There is a lack of evidence that there is ongoing assessment of the extent to which students attain the end-of-program student learning outcomes.
      • There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of students’ attainment of the end-of-program student learning outcomes.
      • There is a lack of evidence that the expected level of achievement for first-time test-takers during the same 12-month period on the licensure examination has been met.
  • Bishop State Community College (Practical) Mobile, AL related to non-compliance with:
    • Standard 6 Outcomes, Criterion 6.1
      • There is a lack of evidence that there is ongoing assessment of the extent to which students attain the end-of-program student learning outcomes.
      • There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of students’ attainment of the end-of-program student learning outcomes.
  • Century College (Associate) White Bear Lake, MN related to non-compliance with:
    • Standard 1 Mission and Administrative Capacity, Criterion 1.8
      • There is a lack of evidence that the nurse administrator has authority and responsilbilty for the development and administration of the program.
    • Standard 6 Outcomes, Criteria 6.1 and 6.4
      • There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of students’ attainment of the end-of-program student learning outcomes.
      • There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of graduates being employed.
  • Chemeketa Community College (Associate) Salem, OR related to non-compliance with:
    • Standard 6 Outcomes, Criteria 6.1 and 6.3
      • There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of students’ attainment of the end-of-program student learning outcomes.
      • There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of students’ completion of the nursing program.
  • Colby Community College (Associate) Colby, KS related to non-compliance with:
    • Standard 4 Curriculum, Criteria 4.2, 4.3, 4.6, and 4.7
      • There is a lack of evidence that the end-of-program student learning outcomes are used to guide the delivery of instruction and direct learning activities.
      • There is a lack of evidence that the curriculum is regularly reviewed to ensure integrity, rigor, and currency.
      • There is a lack of evidence that the curriculum and instructional processes reflect educational theory, interprofessional collaboration, and research.
      • There is a lack of evidence that evaluation methodologies measure the achievement of the end-of-program student learning outcomes.
    • Standard 6 Outcomes, Criteria 6.1 and 6.2
      • There is a lack of evidence that there is ongoing assessment of the extent to which students attain the end-of-program student learning outcomes.
      • There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of students’ attainment of the end-of-program student learning outcomes.
      • There is a lack of evidence that the expected level of achievement for first-time test-takers during the same 12-month period on the licensure examination has been met.
  • Davidson – Davie County Community College (Associate) Lexington, NC related to non-compliance with:
    • Standard 6 Outcomes, Criteria 6.1 and 6.4
      • There is a lack of evidence that there is ongoing assessment of the extent to which students attain the end-of-program student learning outcomes.
      • There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of students’ attainment of the end-of-program student learning outcomes.
      • There is a lack of evidence that there is ongoing assessment of the extent to which graduates of the nursing program are employed.
      • There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of graduates being employed.
      • There is a lack of evidence of a minimum of the three most recent years of available job placement data aggregated for the program as a whole.
  • Lincoln Land Community College (Practical) Springfield, IL related to non-compliance with:
    • Standard 6 Outcomes, Criteria 6.1 and 6.2
      • There is lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of students’ attainment of the end-of-program student learning outcomes.
      • There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of students’ success on the licensure examination.
  • Norfolk Technical Center (Practical) Norfolk, VA related to non-compliance with:
    • Standard 4 Curriculum, Criteria 4.2 and 4.7
      • There is a lack of evidence that there is progression in the course student learning outcomes/course objectives throughout the curriculum in support of the end-of-program student learning outcomes.
      • There is a lack of evidence that evaluation methodologies are varied, reflect established professional and practice competencies and measure the achievement of the end-of-program student learning outcomes.
    • Standard 6 Outcomes, Criterion 6.1
      • There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of students’ attainment of the end-of-program student learning outcomes.
  • Patrick & Henry Community College (Associate) Martinsville, VA related to non-compliance with:
    • Standard 6 Outcomes, Criteria 6.2 and 6.3
      • There is a lack of evidence that the expected level of achievement for first-time test-takers during the same 12-month period on the licensure examination has been met.
      • There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of students’ completion of the nursing program.
  • University of Charleston (Associate) Charleston, WV related to non-compliance with:
    • Standard 6 Outcomes, Criteria 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4
      • There is a lack of evidence that there is ongoing assessment of the extent to which students attain the end-of-program student learning outcomes.
      • There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of students’ attainment of the end-of-program student learning outcomes.
      • There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of success on the licensure examination.
      • There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of students’ completion of the nursing program.
      • There is a lack of evidence that there is ongoing assessment of the extent to which graduates of the nursing program are employed.
      • There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of graduates being employed.
  • University of Charleston (Baccalaureate) Charleston, WV related to non-compliance with:
    • Standard 6 Outcomes, Criteria 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4
      • There is a lack of evidence that there is ongoing assessment of the extent to which students attain the end-of-program student learning outcomes.
      • There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of students’ attainment of the end-of-program student learning outcomes.
      • There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of success on the licensure examination.
      • There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of students’ completion of the nursing program.
      • There is a lack of evidence that there is ongoing assessment of the extent to which graduates of the nursing program are employed.
      • There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of graduates being employed.

Additional InformationContinuing Accreditation with Warning

The Commission granted continuing accreditation with warning to the following programs:

  • None

Additional InformationContinuing Accreditation for Good Cause

The Commission granted continuing accreditation for good cause to the following programs:

  • Chipola College (Associate) Marianna, FL related to non-compliance with:
    • Standard 6 Outcomes, Criterion 6.2
      • There is a lack of evidence that the expected level of achievement for first-time test-takers during the same 12-month period on the NCLEX licensure examination has been met.
  • Hocking College (Associate) Nelsonville, OH related to non-compliance with:
    • Standard 4 Curriculum, Criteria 4.2, 4.3, and 4.7
      • There is a lack of evidence that the end-of-program student learning outcomes are used to organize the curriculum, guide the delivery of instruction, and direct learning activities.
      • There is a lack of evidence that the curriculum is developed by the faculty and regularly reviewed to ensure integrity, rigor, and currency.
      • There is a lack of evidence that evaluation methodologies measure the achievement of the end-of-program student learning outcomes.
    • Standard 6 Outcomes, Criteria 6.1, 6.2, and 6.4
      • There is a lack of evidence that there is ongoing assessment of the extent to which students attain the end-of-program student learning outcomes.
      • There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of students’ attainment of the end-of-program student learning outcomes.
      • There is a lack of evidence that the expected level of achievement for first-time test-takers during the same 12-month period on the licensure examination has been met.
      • There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of success on the licensure examination.
      • There is a lack of evidence that there is ongoing assessment of the extent to which graduates of the nursing program are employed.
      • There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of graduates being employed.
      • There is a lack of evidence of a minimum of the three most recent years of available job placement data aggregated for the program as a whole.
  • Kentucky State University (Associate) Frankfort, KY related to non-compliance with:
    • Standard 6 Outcomes, Criterion 6.2
      • There is a lack of evidence that the expected level of achievement for first-time test-takers during the same 12-month period on the NCLEX licensure examination has been met.

Additional InformationAffirm Continuing Accreditation, Change Status to Continuing Accreditation with Conditions

The Commission affirmed the continuing accreditation and changed the accreditation status to continuing accreditation with conditions after a focused visit to the following program:

  • Bowie State University (Baccalaureate) Bowie, MD related to non-compliance with:
    • Standard 6 Outcomes, Criteria 6.1 and 6.2
      • There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of students’ attainment of the end-of-program student learning outcomes for all program options.
      • There is a lack of evidence that there is ongoing assessment of the extent to which students attain the end-of-program student learning outcomes for all program options.
      • There is a lack of evidence that the expected level of achievement for first-time test-takers during the same 12-month period on the licensure examination has been met.
  • Chicago State University (Baccalaureate) Chicago, IL related to non-compliance with:
    • Standard 6 Outcomes, Criterion 6.2
      • There is a lack of evidence that the expected level of achievement for first-time test-takers during the same 12-month period on the licensure examination has been met.
  • Daytona College (Associate) Ormond Beach, FL related to non-compliance with:
    • Standard 6 Outcomes, Criterion 6.2
      • There is a lack of evidence that the expected level of achievement for first-time test-takers during the same 12-month period on the licensure examination has been met.
  • Rasmussen University – Bloomington (Associate) Bloomington, MN related to non-compliance with:
    • Standard 6 Outcomes, Criterion 6.2
      • There is a lack of evidence that the expected level of achievement for first-time test-takers during the same 12-month period on the licensure examination has been met.

Additional InformationAffirm Continuing Accreditation, Change Status to Continuing Accreditation with Warning

The Commission affirmed the continuing accreditation and changed the accreditation status to continuing accreditation with warning after a focused visit to the following programs.

  • None

Additional InformationAffirm Continuing Accreditation, Change Status to Continuing Accreditation for Good Cause

The Commission changed the accreditation status to continuing accreditation for good cause after a focused visit to the following programs:

  • None

Adverse Actions

Any program denied initial or continuing accreditation has the right to forward comments regarding the Commission decision to the ACEN by November 8, 2021. The ACEN will forward to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education any comments submitted by the nursing program.


Additional InformationDeny Initial Accreditation

The Commission denied initial accreditation to the following program:

Additional InformationDeny Continuing Accreditation

The Commission denied continuing accreditation to the following program

  • None


Definitions


Continuing Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in compliance with all Accreditation Standards.

Continuing Accreditation with Conditions: A measure imposed by the ACEN Board of Commissioners following the determination of non-compliance with one (1) or two (2) Accreditation Standards. Next review and follow-up action(s) are determined by the Board of Commissioners.

Continuing Accreditation with Warning: A measure imposed by the ACEN Board of Commissioners following the determination of non-compliance with three (3) or more Accreditation Standards. Next review and follow-up action(s) are determined by the Board of Commissioners.

Continuing Accreditation for Good Cause: A measure imposed by the ACEN Board of Commissioners following the determination that a nursing program has not remedied deficiencies at the conclusion of its maximum monitoring period and the program has (a) has demonstrated significant recent accomplishments in addressing ; (b) has documented that it has the potential to remedy all deficiencies within the extended period as defined by the Commission; that is, that the program provides evidence which makes it reasonable for the Commission to determine it will remedy all deficiencies within the extended time defined by the Commission; and (c) provides assurance to the Commission that it is not aware of any other reasons, other than those identified by the Commission, why the nursing program could not be continued for good cause.

Denied Initial Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in non-compliance with one or more Accreditation Standard.

Denied Continuing Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program on conditions, warning, or for good cause is found to be in continued non-compliance with any Accreditation Standard. Thereafter the nursing program is removed from the listings of accredited programs.

Focused Visit: A site visit authorized by the ACEN Board of Commissioners to review significant accreditation-related information disclosed about a program as a result of:

A substantive change;

Information revealed about a program between periods of scheduled review;

Information received from the governing organization’s accrediting body related to an adverse action;

Information received from the program’s state regulatory agency for nursing related to a change in its status;

Information revealed by a program during the Evaluation Review Panel process;

Information received from the U.S. Department of Education regarding a program’s compliance responsibilities under Title IV of the Higher Education Act such as information related to a program’s most recent student loan default rates, the results of financial or compliance audits, program reviews, and any other information that may be provided by the U.S. Department of Education.

Follow-up Report: A report prepared by a program addressing the Standard(s) for which the nursing program was found to be in non-compliance during the program’s previous review by the ACEN Board of Commissioners.

Follow-up Visit: A site visit authorized by the ACEN Board of Commissioners to review significant accreditation-related information for which the nursing program was found to be in non-compliance during the program’s previous review by the ACEN Board of Commissioners.

Initial Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in compliance with all Accreditation Standards.

Remove the Conditions Status and Grant Continuing Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in compliance with the Accreditation Standard(s) that the program was found to be in non-compliance during the program’s previous review by the ACEN Board of Commissioners.

Remove the Good Cause Status and Grant Continuing Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in compliance with the Accreditation Standards that the program was found to be in non-compliance during the program’s previous review by the ACEN Board of Commissioners.

Remove the Warning Status and Grant Continuing Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in compliance with the Accreditation Standard(s) that the program was found to be in non-compliance during the program’s previous review by the ACEN Board of Commissioners.

Standard:
See ACEN 2017 Standards and Criteria
Clinical Doctorate/DNP Specialist Certificate
Master’s/Post-Master’s Certificate
Baccalaureate
Associate
Diploma
Practical

Substantive Change Report: A report submitted by an accredited program informing the ACEN of a significant modification or expansion of the nature and scope of a nursing program and/or nursing education unit.

Verification Visit: An onsite visit to examine physical facilities and confirm the enrollment of students following a 100% virtual visit.

ACEN Substantive Changes – August 2021

Notification of Substantive Change Actions
August 2021

Board of Commissioners Actions

Board of Commissioners Actions

The following publicly available information is provided by the Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing (ACEN) concerning actions taken on August 6, 2021, by the ACEN Board of Commissioners related to substantive changes. Commission staff will not speculate on what decision might be made by the ACEN Board of Commissioners the next time a program is reviewed. For additional information regarding ACEN accreditation process, access the Accreditation Manual at http://www.acenursing.org/accreditation-manual

Access the ACEN 2017 Standards and Criteria by program type:


The Board of Commissioners approved the substantive change report for the following programs:

  • Iowa Wesleyan University (Baccalaureate) Mount Pleasant, IA related to a decline in licensure examination pass rate.

The Board of Commissioners approved the substantive change report and authorized a focused visit for the following programs:

  • Amarillo College (Associate) Amarillo, TX related to the implementation of off-campus instructional sites in Borger, TX, Dalhart, TX, Perryton, TX, and Hereford, TX.
  • Bryan College of Health Sciences (Baccalaureate) Lincoln, NE related to the implementation of a new off-campus instructional site in Hastings, NE.

The Board of Commissioners approved the substantive change report and requested a written report about the status of the implementation of the substantive change for the following programs:

  • None

The Board of Commissioners approved the substantive change report and removed the requirement for a focused visit for the following programs:

  • None

The Board of Commissioners denied the substantive change report and authorized a focused visit for the following programs:

  • None

The Board of Commissioners denied the substantive change report for the following programs:

  • None


Chief Executive Officer Actions

Chief Executive Officer Actions

The following actions were taken by the Chief Executive Officer on August 13, 2021, with the authority delegated by the ACEN Board of Commissioners to the ACEN Chief Executive Officer as delineated in ACEN Policy #14 Reporting Substantive Changes. For additional information regarding ACEN accreditation process, access the Accreditation Manual at http://www.acenursing.org/accreditation-manual

Access the ACEN 2017 Standards and Criteria by program type:

The Commission approved the substantive change for the following programs:

  • Clarion and Edinboro Universities of Pennsylvania (Master’s/PMC) Oil City, PA related to the implementation of a Psychiatric/Mental Health Nurse Practitioner (PMHNP) post-master’s certificate program option.
  • Middle Georgia State University (Master’s) Macon, GA related to the implementation of an Adult/Gerontology Acute Care Nurse Practitioner (AGACNP) post-master’s certificate program option.
  • Valencia College (Associate) Orlando, FL related to curriculum revisions of 50% or greater.

The Commission approved the substantive change and authorized a focused visit for the following programs:

  • None

The Commission denied the substantive change for the following programs:

  • None

 


Definitions


Continuing Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in compliance with all Accreditation Standards.

Continuing Accreditation with Conditions: A measure imposed by the ACEN Board of Commissioners following the determination of non-compliance with one (1) or two (2) Accreditation Standards. Next review and follow-up action(s) are determined by the Board of Commissioners.

Continuing Accreditation with Warning: A measure imposed by the ACEN Board of Commissioners following the determination of non-compliance with three (3) or more Accreditation Standards. Next review and follow-up action(s) are determined by the Board of Commissioners.

Continuing Accreditation for Good Cause: A measure imposed by the ACEN Board of Commissioners following the determination that a nursing program has not remedied deficiencies at the conclusion of its maximum monitoring period and the program has (a) has demonstrated significant recent accomplishments in addressing ; (b) has documented that it has the potential to remedy all deficiencies within the extended period as defined by the Commission; that is, that the program provides evidence which makes it reasonable for the Commission to determine it will remedy all deficiencies within the extended time defined by the Commission; and (c) provides assurance to the Commission that it is not aware of any other reasons, other than those identified by the Commission, why the nursing program could not be continued for good cause.

Denied Initial Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in non-compliance with one or more Accreditation Standard.

Denied Continuing Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program on conditions, warning, or for good cause is found to be in continued non-compliance with any Accreditation Standard. Thereafter the nursing program is removed from the listings of accredited programs.

Focused Visit: A site visit authorized by the ACEN Board of Commissioners to review significant accreditation-related information disclosed about a program as a result of:

A substantive change;

Information revealed about a program between periods of scheduled review;

Information received from the governing organization’s accrediting body related to an adverse action;

Information received from the program’s state regulatory agency for nursing related to a change in its status;

Information revealed by a program during the Evaluation Review Panel process;

Information received from the U.S. Department of Education regarding a program’s compliance responsibilities under Title IV of the Higher Education Act such as information related to a program’s most recent student loan default rates, the results of financial or compliance audits, program reviews, and any other information that may be provided by the U.S. Department of Education.

Follow-up Report: A report prepared by a program addressing the Standard(s) for which the nursing program was found to be in non-compliance during the program’s previous review by the ACEN Board of Commissioners.

Initial Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in compliance with all Accreditation Standards.

Remove the Conditions Status and Grant Continuing Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in compliance with the Accreditation Standard(s) that the program was found to be in non-compliance during the program’s previous review by the ACEN Board of Commissioners.

Remove the for Good Cause Status and Grant Continuing Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in compliance with the Accreditation Standards that the program was found to be in non-compliance during the program’s previous review by the ACEN Board of Commissioners.

Remove the Warning Status and Grant Continuing Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in compliance with the Accreditation Standard(s) that the program was found to be in non-compliance during the program’s previous review by the ACEN Board of Commissioners.

Standard:
See ACEN 2017 Standards and Criteria
Clinical Doctorate/DNP Specialist Certificate
Master’s/Post-Master’s Certificate/DNP Specialist Certificate
Baccalaureate
Associate
Diploma
Practical

Substantive Change Report: A report submitted by an accredited program informing the ACEN of a significant modification or expansion of the nature and scope of a nursing program and/or nursing education unit.

ACEN Substantive Changes – July 2021

Notification of Substantive Change Actions
July 2021

Board of Commissioners Actions

The following publicly available information is provided by the Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing (ACEN) concerning actions taken on July 6, 2021, by the ACEN Board of Commissioners related to substantive changes. Commission staff will not speculate on what decision might be made by the ACEN Board of Commissioners the next time a program is reviewed. For additional information regarding ACEN accreditation process, access the Accreditation Manual at http://www.acenursing.org/accreditation-manual

Access the ACEN 2017 Standards and Criteria by program type:


The Board of Commissioners approved the substantive change report for the following programs:

  • Bishop State Community College (Associate/Practical) Mobile, AL related to the implementation of distance education of 50% or greater.
  • Cox College (Associate) Springfield, MO related to a change in form of control for the governing organization.
  • Holy Name Medical Center (Diploma) Englewood Cliffs, NJ related to curriculum revisions of 50% or greater and a change in overall program length of 20% or greater.

The Board of Commissioners approved the substantive change report and authorized a focused visit for the following programs:

  • Jefferson Community & Technical College (Associate) Louisville, KY related to the implementation of the Shelby County off-campus instructional site and distance education of 50% or greater.
  • Pearl River Community College (Associate) Poplarville, MS related to the implementation of the Forrest County Center off-campus instructional site.

The Board of Commissioners approved the substantive change report and requested a written report about the status of the implementation of the substantive change for the following programs:

  • None

The Board of Commissioners approved the substantive change report and removed the requirement for a focused visit for the following programs:

  • None

The Board of Commissioners denied the substantive change report and authorized a focused visit for the following programs:

  • None

The Board of Commissioners denied the substantive change report for the following programs:

  • None

Definitions


Continuing Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in compliance with all Accreditation Standards.

Continuing Accreditation with Conditions: A measure imposed by the ACEN Board of Commissioners following the determination of non-compliance with one (1) or two (2) Accreditation Standards. Next review and follow-up action(s) are determined by the Board of Commissioners.

Continuing Accreditation with Warning: A measure imposed by the ACEN Board of Commissioners following the determination of non-compliance with three (3) or more Accreditation Standards. Next review and follow-up action(s) are determined by the Board of Commissioners.

Continuing Accreditation for Good Cause: A measure imposed by the ACEN Board of Commissioners following the determination that a nursing program has not remedied deficiencies at the conclusion of its maximum monitoring period and the program has (a) has demonstrated significant recent accomplishments in addressing ; (b) has documented that it has the potential to remedy all deficiencies within the extended period as defined by the Commission; that is, that the program provides evidence which makes it reasonable for the Commission to determine it will remedy all deficiencies within the extended time defined by the Commission; and (c) provides assurance to the Commission that it is not aware of any other reasons, other than those identified by the Commission, why the nursing program could not be continued for good cause.

Denied Initial Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in non-compliance with one or more Accreditation Standard.

Denied Continuing Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program on conditions, warning, or for good cause is found to be in continued non-compliance with any Accreditation Standard. Thereafter the nursing program is removed from the listings of accredited programs.

Focused Visit: A site visit authorized by the ACEN Board of Commissioners to review significant accreditation-related information disclosed about a program as a result of:

A substantive change;

Information revealed about a program between periods of scheduled review;

Information received from the governing organization’s accrediting body related to an adverse action;

Information received from the program’s state regulatory agency for nursing related to a change in its status;

Information revealed by a program during the Evaluation Review Panel process;

Information received from the U.S. Department of Education regarding a program’s compliance responsibilities under Title IV of the Higher Education Act such as information related to a program’s most recent student loan default rates, the results of financial or compliance audits, program reviews, and any other information that may be provided by the U.S. Department of Education.

Follow-up Report: A report prepared by a program addressing the Standard(s) for which the nursing program was found to be in non-compliance during the program’s previous review by the ACEN Board of Commissioners.

Initial Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in compliance with all Accreditation Standards.

Remove the Conditions Status and Grant Continuing Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in compliance with the Accreditation Standard(s) that the program was found to be in non-compliance during the program’s previous review by the ACEN Board of Commissioners.

Remove the for Good Cause Status and Grant Continuing Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in compliance with the Accreditation Standards that the program was found to be in non-compliance during the program’s previous review by the ACEN Board of Commissioners.

Remove the Warning Status and Grant Continuing Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in compliance with the Accreditation Standard(s) that the program was found to be in non-compliance during the program’s previous review by the ACEN Board of Commissioners.

Standard:
See ACEN 2017 Standards and Criteria
Clinical Doctorate/DNP Specialist Certificate
Master’s/Post-Master’s Certificate
Baccalaureate
Associate
Diploma
Practical

Substantive Change Report: A report submitted by an accredited program informing the ACEN of a significant modification or expansion of the nature and scope of a nursing program and/or nursing education unit.

ACEN Substantive Changes – June 2021

Notification of Substantive Change Actions
June 2021

Board of Commissioners Actions

The following publicly available information is provided by the Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing (ACEN) concerning actions taken on June 10, 2021, by the ACEN Board of Commissioners related to substantive changes. Commission staff will not speculate on what decision might be made by the ACEN Board of Commissioners the next time a program is reviewed. For additional information regarding ACEN accreditation process, access the Accreditation Manual at http://www.acenursing.org/accreditation-manual

Access the ACEN 2017 Standards and Criteria by program type:


The Board of Commissioners approved the substantive change report for the following programs:

  • None

The Board of Commissioners approved the substantive change report and authorized a focused visit for the following programs:

  • None

The Board of Commissioners approved the substantive change report and requested a written report about the status of the implementation of the substantive change for the following programs:

  • Northeastern Junior College (Associate) Sterling, CO related to a decline in licensure examination pass rate.

The Board of Commissioners approved the substantive change report and removed the requirement for a focused visit for the following programs:

  • H. Councill Trenholm State Community College (Practical) Montgomery, AL related to a decline in licensure examination pass rate.
  • Huntingdon County Career and Technology Center (Practical) Mill Creek, PA related to non-compliance with Criterion 1.5.

The Board of Commissioners denied the substantive change report and authorized a focused visit for the following programs:

  • None

The Board of Commissioners denied the substantive change report for the following programs:

  • None

Definitions


Continuing Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in compliance with all Accreditation Standards.

Continuing Accreditation with Conditions: A measure imposed by the ACEN Board of Commissioners following the determination of non-compliance with one (1) or two (2) Accreditation Standards. Next review and follow-up action(s) are determined by the Board of Commissioners.

Continuing Accreditation with Warning: A measure imposed by the ACEN Board of Commissioners following the determination of non-compliance with three (3) or more Accreditation Standards. Next review and follow-up action(s) are determined by the Board of Commissioners.

Continuing Accreditation for Good Cause: A measure imposed by the ACEN Board of Commissioners following the determination that a nursing program has not remedied deficiencies at the conclusion of its maximum monitoring period and the program has (a) has demonstrated significant recent accomplishments in addressing ; (b) has documented that it has the potential to remedy all deficiencies within the extended period as defined by the Commission; that is, that the program provides evidence which makes it reasonable for the Commission to determine it will remedy all deficiencies within the extended time defined by the Commission; and (c) provides assurance to the Commission that it is not aware of any other reasons, other than those identified by the Commission, why the nursing program could not be continued for good cause.

Denied Initial Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in non-compliance with one or more Accreditation Standard.

Denied Continuing Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program on conditions, warning, or for good cause is found to be in continued non-compliance with any Accreditation Standard. Thereafter the nursing program is removed from the listings of accredited programs.

Focused Visit: A site visit authorized by the ACEN Board of Commissioners to review significant accreditation-related information disclosed about a program as a result of:

A substantive change;

Information revealed about a program between periods of scheduled review;

Information received from the governing organization’s accrediting body related to an adverse action;

Information received from the program’s state regulatory agency for nursing related to a change in its status;

Information revealed by a program during the Evaluation Review Panel process;

Information received from the U.S. Department of Education regarding a program’s compliance responsibilities under Title IV of the Higher Education Act such as information related to a program’s most recent student loan default rates, the results of financial or compliance audits, program reviews, and any other information that may be provided by the U.S. Department of Education.

Follow-up Report: A report prepared by a program addressing the Standard(s) for which the nursing program was found to be in non-compliance during the program’s previous review by the ACEN Board of Commissioners.

Initial Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in compliance with all Accreditation Standards.

Remove the Conditions Status and Grant Continuing Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in compliance with the Accreditation Standard(s) that the program was found to be in non-compliance during the program’s previous review by the ACEN Board of Commissioners.

Remove the for Good Cause Status and Grant Continuing Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in compliance with the Accreditation Standards that the program was found to be in non-compliance during the program’s previous review by the ACEN Board of Commissioners.

Remove the Warning Status and Grant Continuing Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in compliance with the Accreditation Standard(s) that the program was found to be in non-compliance during the program’s previous review by the ACEN Board of Commissioners.

Standard:
See ACEN 2017 Standards and Criteria
Clinical Doctorate/DNP Specialist Certificate
Master’s/Post-Master’s Certificate
Baccalaureate
Associate
Diploma
Practical

Substantive Change Report: A report submitted by an accredited program informing the ACEN of a significant modification or expansion of the nature and scope of a nursing program and/or nursing education unit.

Returning to Normal! ACEN’s First Post-Covid In-Person Self-Study Forum

Is your nursing program preparing for a site visit? The ACEN recommends that nursing program faculty and leaders attend a Self-Study Forum within two years prior to your program’s upcoming site visit. The forum is a 1.5-day workshop that provides attendees the opportunity to become more familiar with the ACEN Standards and Criteria and become comfortable with the idea of composing a Self-Study Report as required by the upcoming site visit. Participants receive 10 CEUs.

The Self-Study Form on November 1‒2, 2021 in Houston, TX will be the first in-person event the ACEN has hosted since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. According to the ACEN’s Chief Executive Officer, Marsal Stoll, the ACEN is working closely with the host location “to protect the safety of attendees. The hotel agreed to follow all the COVID-19 safety practices/guidelines hotel-wide issued by the CDC or Marriott Corporation, whichever are more restrictive at the time of the event.”

You can learn more about the Self-Study Forum and register here.

ACEN Substantive Changes – April 2021

Notification of Substantive Change Actions
April 2021

Board of Commissioners Actions

The following publicly available information is provided by the Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing (ACEN) concerning actions taken on April 9, 2021, by the ACEN Board of Commissioners related to substantive changes. Commission staff will not speculate on what decision might be made by the ACEN Board of Commissioners the next time a program is reviewed. For additional information regarding ACEN accreditation process, access the Accreditation Manual at http://www.acenursing.org/accreditation-manual

Access the ACEN 2017 Standards and Criteria by program type:


The Board of Commissioners approved the substantive change report for the following programs:

  • Bryant & Stratton College – Akron (Practical) Akron, OH related to a decline in licensure examination pass rates.
  • Jersey College – Largo (Associate) Largo, FL related to the implementation of distance education of 50% or greater.
  • Jersey College – Tampa (Associate) Tampa, FL related to the implementation of distance education of 50% or greater.
  • Jersey College – Teterboro (Associate) Teterboro, NJ related to the implementation of distance education of 50% or greater.
  • Santa Fe College (Associate) Gainesville, FL related to the implementation of distance education of 50% or greater.

The Board of Commissioners approved the substantive change report and authorized a focused visit for the following programs:

  • Americore Health/St. Alexius Hospital, Inc. (Diploma) St. Louis, MO related to a change in ownership and relocation.
  • Delaware State University (Baccalaureate) Dover, DE related to the acquisition of the ACEN-accredited master’s and baccalaureate nursing programs from Wesley College.
  • UPMC Jameson (Diploma) Newcastle, PA related to the implementation of the UPMC Hamot branch campus.

The Board of Commissioners approved the substantive change report and requested a written report about the status of the implementation of the substantive change for the following programs:

  • None

The Board of Commissioners approved the substantive change report and removed the requirement for a focused visit for the following programs:

  • None

The Board of Commissioners denied the substantive change report and authorized a focused visit for the following programs:

  • None

The Board of Commissioners denied the substantive change report for the following programs:

  • None

Definitions


Continuing Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in compliance with all Accreditation Standards.

Continuing Accreditation with Conditions: A measure imposed by the ACEN Board of Commissioners following the determination of non-compliance with one (1) or two (2) Accreditation Standards. Next review and follow-up action(s) are determined by the Board of Commissioners.

Continuing Accreditation with Warning: A measure imposed by the ACEN Board of Commissioners following the determination of non-compliance with three (3) or more Accreditation Standards. Next review and follow-up action(s) are determined by the Board of Commissioners.

Continuing Accreditation for Good Cause: A measure imposed by the ACEN Board of Commissioners following the determination that a nursing program has not remedied deficiencies at the conclusion of its maximum monitoring period and the program has (a) has demonstrated significant recent accomplishments in addressing ; (b) has documented that it has the potential to remedy all deficiencies within the extended period as defined by the Commission; that is, that the program provides evidence which makes it reasonable for the Commission to determine it will remedy all deficiencies within the extended time defined by the Commission; and (c) provides assurance to the Commission that it is not aware of any other reasons, other than those identified by the Commission, why the nursing program could not be continued for good cause.

Denied Initial Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in non-compliance with one or more Accreditation Standard.

Denied Continuing Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program on conditions, warning, or for good cause is found to be in continued non-compliance with any Accreditation Standard. Thereafter the nursing program is removed from the listings of accredited programs.

Focused Visit: A site visit authorized by the ACEN Board of Commissioners to review significant accreditation-related information disclosed about a program as a result of:

A substantive change;

Information revealed about a program between periods of scheduled review;

Information received from the governing organization’s accrediting body related to an adverse action;

Information received from the program’s state regulatory agency for nursing related to a change in its status;

Information revealed by a program during the Evaluation Review Panel process;

Information received from the U.S. Department of Education regarding a program’s compliance responsibilities under Title IV of the Higher Education Act such as information related to a program’s most recent student loan default rates, the results of financial or compliance audits, program reviews, and any other information that may be provided by the U.S. Department of Education.

Follow-up Report: A report prepared by a program addressing the Standard(s) for which the nursing program was found to be in non-compliance during the program’s previous review by the ACEN Board of Commissioners.

Initial Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in compliance with all Accreditation Standards.

Remove the Conditions Status and Grant Continuing Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in compliance with the Accreditation Standard(s) that the program was found to be in non-compliance during the program’s previous review by the ACEN Board of Commissioners.

Remove the for Good Cause Status and Grant Continuing Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in compliance with the Accreditation Standards that the program was found to be in non-compliance during the program’s previous review by the ACEN Board of Commissioners.

Remove the Warning Status and Grant Continuing Accreditation: A determination by the ACEN Board of Commissioners that a nursing program is in compliance with the Accreditation Standard(s) that the program was found to be in non-compliance during the program’s previous review by the ACEN Board of Commissioners.

Standard:
See ACEN 2017 Standards and Criteria
Clinical Doctorate/DNP Specialist Certificate
Master’s/Post-Master’s Certificate
Baccalaureate
Associate
Diploma
Practical

Substantive Change Report: A report submitted by an accredited program informing the ACEN of a significant modification or expansion of the nature and scope of a nursing program and/or nursing education unit.

The Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing (ACEN) and the Organization for Associate Degree Nursing (OADN) Coordinate Efforts To Support Nursing Education’s Role In Vaccine Strategy.

ATLANTA, GA -The Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing (ACEN) and the Organization for Associate Degree Nursing (OADN) are strategically collaborating to assist the nationwide COVID-19 vaccination effort. Together, the organizations will advocate for an increased role for nursing education programs in the vaccine rollout to help meet the goals set forth by the Biden Administration. Through this collaboration, the ACEN and OADN will disseminate information and approaches that can assist nursing programs in identifying how students and nursing faculty can safely and effectively support vaccination education and efforts in their communities. ACEN accredited programs and OADN member schools can be found in every state, as well as U.S. territories and abroad, and these programs are poised to assist in the scaling of vaccine delivery.

The ACEN and OADN strongly encourage nursing programs to actively identify how they can support vaccine delivery in their communities. For full engagement in the vaccine effort, our organizations urge nursing students and faculty to receive the COVID-19 vaccine as soon as it is available to them.

“OADN believes that nursing education programs have an important role to play in the unprecedented effort to vaccinate the entire population. Nursing students and faculty have expertise and skills that should be engaged to safely accelerate the vaccine rollout,” said Donna Meyer, Chief Executive Officer of OADN. “The Biden Administration’s National Strategy for the COVID-19 Response and Pandemic Preparedness encourages states leveraging practical and registered nursing students to surge their vaccinator workforce. OADN and the ACEN believe that this one important strategy towards achieving the Administration’s vaccination goals and ensuring vaccine equity.”

“The ACEN is dedicated to ensuring the highest standards in nursing education. Our broad community of over 1200 accredited nursing education programs is well-prepared to help the nation meet the herculean task of wide-scale vaccination, while simultaneously continuing to prepare the nursing workforce for the future. The ACEN supports students participating in the COVID immunization efforts, as these efforts could be considered Clinical/Practicum Learning Experiences as defined in the ACEN Glossary. Nursing program engagement in the vaccination effort can take many forms, including vaccine administration, patient education, community outreach, and contact tracing, among others,” said Marsal Stoll, Chief Executive Officer for the ACEN. “In a letter to the nursing administrators of ACEN accredited programs on February 1, 2021, the ACEN shared how the Georgia Department of Health is engaging nursing students and faculty to support mass vaccination sites in the state. We encourage all stakeholders to consider this strategy, which includes just in time training and memoranda of understanding, when developing an approach in your state or area.”

“The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has stipulated that clinical trainees, including nursing students, can be trained and utilized as vaccinators at VA vaccine administration sites. Local nursing program deans and directors are encouraged to reach out to local VA nursing leadership to identify the best way to get involved. We will also continue to closely monitor the Biden Administration’s vaccination policies and regulations. This includes any amendments made by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to the Declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act),” continued Stoll.

“Additionally, the National Student Response Network (NSRN), an interprofessional collaborative of health professions students, is seeking nursing student volunteers for various roles in mass vaccination. Students interested in volunteering are encouraged to contact their regional or state coordinator,” noted Meyer.

“On the vaccine education front, the American Nurses Association is developing a coordinated vaccination messaging campaign which will provide COVID-19 vaccine information, encourage all nurses to be vaccinated, and promote vaccine education and uptake by consumers,” added Meyer. “OADN is participating in the development of this messaging campaign and will be sharing the communication tools and related resources once they are completed.”

The ACEN and OADN have joined the COVID-19 Vaccine Education and Equity Project which aims to promote equitable access to authorized and approved vaccines through equitable access to information and dialogue. The Project will foster dialogues to address and reduce vaccine skepticism, with the goal to promote equitable vaccine distribution and improved health outcomes for communities hit hardest by COVID-19.

Nursing education programs are encouraged to share how they are supporting the mass vaccination effort; please, share your stories here.  Continue to follow the ACEN’s COVID-19 News and Announcements and OADN’s COVID-19 Resources for more information and further developments.

About the Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing (ACEN)

ACEN supports the interests of nursing education, nursing practice, and the public by the functions of accreditation. Accreditation is a peer-review, 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 for all levels of nursing education and transition-to-practice programs located in the United States, U.S. Territories, and internationally. www.acenursing.org  

About the Organization of Associate Degree Nursing (OADN)

OADN is the national voice and a pivotal resource for community college nursing education and the associate degree pathway. We work to expand networks that promote leadership, collaboration, and advocacy to further enrich nursing education and the communities we serve. Online at www.oadn.org

New Leadership Offerings at OADN

NEW LEADERSHIP OFFERINGS AT OADN!

By Mary Dickow, MPA, FAAN | Director of Strategic Initiatives | Organization for Associate Degree Nursing (OADN)
Bridges, Volume XIII – Issue 4, November 2019

At the 2019 Convention, OADN worked in partnership with the ACEN to deliver a full-day session entitled Be the Leader You Would Follow: Essentials for Great Leadership in Nursing. That session drew enormous interest from nurse educators attracted to this full-day, interactive experience. It provided the participants the opportunity to work on personal leadership development plans as well as to gain valuable tools and resources to take back to their programs to address real-time solutions. Other sessions offered on Professional Identity in Nursing and Critical Conversations were two of the highest attended breakout sessions, targeting important issues for nurse educators. OADN remains committed to staying engaged with the leadership pulse by paying attention to the current trends that affect nursing education and contributing to the success of nurse educators.

OADN understands the challenges and hurdles nurse educators face every day. With a goal to prepare them with the tools to address these challenges, OADN is planning to offer new leadership development opportunities to identify solutions. An exciting leadership development track is in the works for the 2020 Convention with topics such as mentoring, goal setting, and succession planning. As the only national nursing organization representing ADN programs, we have a responsibility to offer a strong leadership platform for new directors and faculty aspiring to lead. Everything OADN does to better prepare nurse educators is a reflection on the students and the communities surrounding the many community colleges across the nation. OADN is ready now more than ever to contribute to the knowledge and skills necessary to achieve the vision of creating healthier communities—one nurse leader at a time.

Working with national leaders such as the ACEN, OADN is in the process of developing webinars and pop-up sessions on hot topics in leadership to offer throughout the year. In addition, OADN is exploring ways to incorporate what was gained from the recent membership survey to demonstrate a commitment to taking what nurse educators say they need, then creating valuable content to address those needs. As OADN continues to grow, it is essential to acknowledge the importance of growing and mentoring new leaders while providing unique opportunities for the more seasoned leaders as well. OADN is committed to developing successful nurse leaders with a vision for 2020 and beyond!

Top 10 Ways to Get or Keep Your Faculty Engaged

TOP 10 WAYS TO ENGAGE FACULTY IN THE ACCREDITATION PROCESS!

By Suzette Farmer, PhD, RN | Director | ACEN
Bridges, Volume XIII – Issue 4, November 2019

Ever wondered how to engage faculty in the accreditation process? Read this article to see the Top 10 strategies for engaging faculty and ensuring program success during your next accreditation site visit!

 

Live accreditation every day—be visit-ready all the time. Create a culture where accreditation is not a dirty word!! For example, use ACEN terminology during meetings…make accreditation processes “normal” and familiar in your daily work as a nurse educator.

 

Appreciate and acknowledge how accreditation can help you be a better faculty member and a better program. As you become more familiar with the Standards and Criteria, you will recognize how curriculum (Standard 4) flows into outcomes (Standard 6); and soon, you will see how the ACEN’s emphasis on student learning and the end-of-program student learning outcomes can help you be a better and more effective nurse educator.

 

Use the Standards and Criteria as a framework for orienting new faculty. Don’t wait to introduce new faculty to accreditation and the ACEN Standards and Criteria. Once again, the emphasis on faculty qualifications and development, students and student learning, resources needed for program development and maintenance, the development and delivery of a curriculum designed to help graduates practice in a contemporary environment, and a focus on the achievement of end-of-program student learning outcomes and program outcomes will provide new nurse educators with a framework that will support them throughout their career in nursing education.

 

Keep it simple, don’t overthink the accreditation process. The Standards and Criteria are simply statements of good educational and academic practice. The Standards and Criteria are designed to help programs achieve and maintain quality…they are indicators of quality as determined by your nurse faculty peers. A program that is in compliance with the Standards and Criteria is not jumping through hoops; they are intentionally doing the “right thing” for their students and the profession!

 

Consider taking advantage of optional services offered by the ACEN, such a being an Observer on a site visit team or taking advantage of an Advisory Review. These optional services can help you be more familiar with the accreditation process and the activities of the site visit team (Observer); or, they can help you and your faculty develop a deeper understanding of selected Standards within the specific context of your program (Advisory Review).

 

Share accountability for maintaining accreditation readiness. The nurse administrator is not an island. When the work of accreditation is distributed among the faculty, everyone—including the students—benefits. Sharing accountability helps ensure the program is always ready for a visit, and it can help minimize the chaos that sometimes occurs before an accreditation visit. It also provides a means for faculty to provide service to the program and develop leadership skills!

 

Develop knowledge about and understanding of the Standards and Criteria. Don’t believe “urban legends” about accreditation—find out for yourself! Many people believe things about accreditation that simply are not true, such as the myth that you have to have a graduating class before you can be accredited (which isn’t true). Study the Standards and Criteria, review ACEN policies, and ask questions! The ACEN is here to be your supportive partner in the accreditation journey.

 

Nurse administrators should listen to faculty and be open to their ideas, learn to appreciate their creativity, and be willing to take a few risks when faculty suggest new ways of doing things. If we want to prepare our students for a dynamic healthcare environment, we need to be willing to make our nursing education programs more dynamic and move beyond “the way we’ve always done it” mentality. Don’t be afraid to try new approaches and be sure to give them some time to work! Celebrate innovation.

 

Encourage faculty to become peer evaluators for the ACEN and provide support for them to participate in site visits. Being a peer evaluator is an effective way to increase knowledge of the Standards and Criteria, learn from peers serving with you on the site visit team, and learn from the programs you visit. Dr. Sharon Beasley’s article will provide you more information about how becoming a peer evaluator benefits the program and the individual faculty member.

 

Send faculty members to an ACEN Self-Study Forum! Self-Study Forums are held 2‒3 times a year in locations across the country. It’s an opportunity for attendees to interact with other nurse educators and the ACEN Directors….all while developing a deeper understanding of the Standards and Criteria. We hope to see you soon!

Living the ACEN Accreditation Process

LIVING THE ACEN ACCREDITATION PROCESS

By Sharon Beasley, PhD, RN, CNE | Director | ACEN
Bridges, Volume XIII – Issue 4, November 2019

Dr. Suzette Farmer’s Bridges article, Top 10 Ways to Engage Faculty in the Accreditation Process (2019) , provided techniques to engage faculty in the preparation for and maintenance of ACEN accreditation. As a corollary to Dr. Farmer’s article, Living the ACEN Accreditation Process outlines key definitions inherent in the four-step ACEN accreditation process, and the faculty’s opportunities to participate in various steps of the accreditation process. Let’s start with a review of definitions necessary to understand each step of the process.

Definitions and the Four-Step Process

1. The Self-Study Report (SSR) is a written document addressing the program’s self-evaluation regarding its compliance with the ACEN accreditation Standards and Criteria (2017 ACEN Guidelines for the Self-Study Report). The SSR is evidence that is evaluated by peer evaluators in each level of review; therefore, it should be written clearly and accurately.

2. The site visit team is a group of peer evaluators (educators and clinicians who are eligible to volunteer as described in ACEN’s Peer Evaluator Selection Criteria), who are knowledgeable about various program types, appropriate curricula, common practices, and trends in nursing education and practice. The peer evaluators on the site visit team provide an onsite review inclusive of interviews, observations, tours, and a review of exhibits. At the conclusion of the site visit, the peer evaluators complete a Site Visit Report (SVR) documenting their findings and a recommendation for accreditation.

3. The Evaluation Review Panel (ERP) is a group of peer evaluators who are appointed by the ACEN Board of Commissioners (BOC) to conduct its own independent analysis regarding the extent to which the program meets the ACEN Standards. The ERP represents peer evaluators from programs similar to the programs reviewed and clinicians from various geographic regions. At the conclusion of ERP deliberations, these peer evaluators offer their independent recommendation to the BOC based on the program’s SSR and the findings from the peer evaluators on the site visit team.

4. The BOC is responsible for making all accreditation decisions, and the Commissioners are elected by the nurse administrators from ACEN-accredited programs. Additionally, this 17-member Board is responsible for ensuring consistency in the application of the Standards and Criteria among all programs within each cycle. The Board reviews each program’s SSR, the SVR and recommendation, the ERP recommendation, any additional information if applicable, and renders an accreditation decision.

All of these terms are commonly used in the ACEN realm of accreditation. Notably, all of the definitions are steps within the accreditation process. The four steps in the process are the:

  • Submission of the Self-Study Report;
  • Site Visit;
  • Evaluation Review Panel’s recommendation; and
  • Board of Commissioners’ accreditation decision.

The first step in the accreditation process is the perfect opportunity for faculty to become familiar with the ACEN accreditation process from the faculty/program’s perspective. The remaining three steps provide additional opportunities for participation within the ACEN accreditation review process. However, the three remaining steps require faculty to become ACEN peer evaluators – what a wonderful opportunity! Thus, living the ACEN accreditation process relies on the volunteer efforts of peer evaluators.

Why Are Peer Evaluators Needed?

The ACEN is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) to accredit all levels of nursing programs (i.e., clinical doctorate/doctorate in nursing practice specialist certificate, master’s/post-master’s certificate, baccalaureate, associate, diploma, and practical). Therefore, peer evaluators are needed for all program types and three (i.e., site visit, ERP, and BOC) of four levels of review. Eligibility to serve as a peer evaluator requires a minimum of a graduate degree in nursing. However, to serve on a team that reviews a graduate program, peer evaluators serving as a nurse educator must have a master’s degree in nursing and an earned doctorate degree from a regionally accredited college/university. To serve on a team that reviews an undergraduate program, peer evaluators serving as a nurse educator must have a master’s degree in nursing. A nurse clinician must have a minimum of a graduate degree in nursing to review any program type (2019 ACEN Accreditation Manual, Section 1 General Information, pp. 21–22). Further, the process to become a peer evaluator is seamless and includes submission of a letter of interest, a curriculum vitae, and a letter of recommendation. All documents must be submitted through our Nominate a Peer Evaluator portal located on the ACEN website.

Conclusion

Peer review is the core of the ACEN accreditation review process. The ACEN is fortunate to work with nearly 650 volunteer peer evaluators who ensure integrity of the accreditation review process by evaluating programs in three of four levels of the process. During each level of review, peer evaluators provide expertise from their current and past experiences in nursing education and practice. Peer evaluators offer their personal time and expertise to the nursing profession through their rigorous review of nursing programs. Serving as a peer evaluator is personally fulfilling and an altruistic act of serving a community of nursing students, educators, and clinicians. Yet, two of the most practical benefits are a broader and deeper understanding of the ACEN Standards and Criteria and exposure to various practices in nursing education. “…one of the most fulfilling attributes of the peer evaluator role is the opportunity to lend an expert voice to the accreditation review process and ultimately the quality of nursing education” (Beasley, Farmer, Ard, Nunn-Ellison, 2019).