ACCREDITATION COMMISSION FOR EDUCATION IN NURSING · 2019-11-16 · 7 ACCREDITATION PROCESS AND OUTCOMES FALL 2017 – SPRING 2018 ACCREDITATION CYCLE OVERVIEW One hundred ninety-seven

2

ACCREDITATION COMMISSION FOR EDUCATION IN NURSING

3343 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 850 | Atlanta, GA 30326 | (404) 975-5000

www.acenursing.org

Copyright © 2019 ACEN | All Rights Reserved

ACEN ® is a registered trademark of the Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing

http://www.acenursing.org/

3

ABOUT THE ACEN

MISSION

The Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing (ACEN) supports the interests of nursing

education, nursing practice, and the public by the functions of accreditation. Accreditation is a peer-

reviewed, 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. Accreditation also assists in the further improvement of the institutions or programs as related

to resources invested, processes followed, and results achieved. The monitoring of certificate, diploma,

and degree offerings is tied closely to state examination and licensing rules and to the oversight of

preparation for work in the profession.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the ACEN is to provide specialized accreditation for all levels of nursing education and

transition-to-practice programs.

Nursing Education Accreditation:

The ACEN is recognized by the United States Department of Education (USDE) as a specialized

accrediting agency for nursing education programs located in the United States and its

territories.

The ACEN is recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) for nursing

education programs in the United States and its territories as well as for international nursing

education programs.

The ACEN accredits all types of nursing education programs, including clinical doctorate/DNP

specialist certificate, master’s/post-master’s certificate, baccalaureate, associate, diploma, and

practical nursing programs.

The ACEN accredits nursing education programs in secondary, postsecondary, and hospital-

based governing organizations that offer certificates, diplomas, or degrees.

The ACEN serves as a Higher Education Reauthorization, Title IV Gatekeeper for all types of

nursing education programs offered by certain institutions that are eligible to participate in financial aid programs administered by the USDE or other federal agencies.

Transition-to-Practice Accreditation:

The ACEN accredits non-credit transition-to-practice programs at all levels of nursing licensure.

The ACEN accredits transition-to-practice programs offered by academic institutions (e.g.,

university, college, career center) and/or healthcare agencies (e.g., hospitals, long-term care).

4

GOALS

As the leading authority in nursing accreditation, the goal of the ACEN is to be a supportive partner in

strengthening the quality of nursing education and transition-to-practice programs through:

Supporting nursing education programs and transition-to-practice programs in obtaining and

maintaining accreditation

Promoting peer review

Advocating for self-regulation

Fostering quality, equity, access, opportunity, mobility, and preparation for practice, or

transition-to-practice, at all levels of nursing preparation

Developing standards and criteria for accreditation

ABOUT THE REPORT TO CONSTITUENTS

The Report to Constituents is an annual publication produced by the ACEN. Its purpose is twofold:

Discuss the accreditation process and share accreditation decisions made by the ACEN

Board of Commissioners during the specified year.

Present analysis of the data collected from the ACEN Annual Report.

Data regarding accreditation decisions rendered during the 2017 – 2018 Accreditation Cycle(s) are

collected, collated, and analyzed from the ACEN's own ongoing records.

The ACEN Annual Report is a yearly survey sent out to all programs accredited by the ACEN to gather

program-specific, industry relevant data in a number of areas relating to nursing program operation. The

ACEN Annual Report is used by the ACEN and our many stakeholders to monitor components

essential to the educational quality of ACEN-accredited nursing programs. Additionally, the report

facilitates the communication of trended aggregated data to stakeholders.

5

2018 REPORT TO CONSTITUENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABOUT THE ACEN .......................................................................................................................... 1

MISSION ...................................................................................................................................... 3

PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................................... 3

GOALS ........................................................................................................................................ 4

ABOUT THE REPORT TO CONSTITUENTS .................................................................................... 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................... 5

ACCREDITATION PROCESS AND OUTCOMES ............................................................................ 7

ACCREDITATION CYCLE OVERVIEW ....................................................................................... 7

ACCREDITATION DECISONS ..................................................................................................... 8

Accreditation Process Review Levels ................................................................................. 9

Continuing Accreditation With Conditions ..................................................................... 13

Continuing Accreditation With Warning And Continuing Accreditation For Good

Cause .................................................................................................................................... 14

Denial Of Initial Or Continuing Accreditation ................................................................. 16

FOLLOW-UP REPORTS .............................................................................................................. 20

AREAS NEEDING DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................... 21

SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 24

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE ACEN ANNUAL REPORTS .......................................... 25

Annual Report Purpose And Use .......................................................................................... 25

RETURN RATE ............................................................................................................................ 25

SECTION I. Substantive Change ............................................................................................ 26

6

SECTION II. Program Outcomes ............................................................................................ 27

Licensure Examination Pass Rates..................................................................................... 27

Certification Examination Pass Rates ............................................................................... 31

Completion Rates ............................................................................................................... 31

Job Placement Rates ......................................................................................................... 33

End-Of-Program Student Learning Outcomes Reporting Data ................................... 38

SECTION III. Program Operations .......................................................................................... 40

Student Enrollment .............................................................................................................. 40

Faculty Tables ...................................................................................................................... 42

Faculty-To-Student .............................................................................................................. 42

Standardized Testing........................................................................................................... 44

Skills / Simulation Laboratories ........................................................................................... 48

Laboratory Personnel .......................................................................................................... 49

Program Length ................................................................................................................... 50

CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................... 52

7

ACCREDITATION PROCESS AND OUTCOMES FALL 2017 – SPRING 2018

ACCREDITATION CYCLE OVERVIEW One hundred ninety-seven (197) site visits were conducted during the Fall 2017 and Spring 2018

accreditation cycles. Table 1 is an overview of all program types presented by visit configuration (i.e.,

single program or multiple programs within a nursing education unit).

The Board of Commissioners’ decisions for the programs visited during the Fall 2017 and Spring 2018

accreditation cycles resulted in 243 programs being granted initial or continuing accreditation (Table 2).

The 45 programs seeking initial accreditation included newly established nursing programs as well as

longstanding programs seeking accreditation for the first time. The programs seeking initial accreditation

were most commonly associate and practical programs. One program seeking initial accreditation

withdrew from the accreditation process prior to the Board of Commissioners’ meeting.

Table 1

Number of Fall 2017 - Spring 2018 Site Visits by Program Type and Visit Structure

PROGRAM TYPE

Visit Structure TOTAL

NUMBER OF

PROGRAMS

REVIEWED

Number of

Site Visits

Multiple Program Visits

C/B M/B M/B/A B/A A/P

Clinical Doctorate 2

1

3

Master's / PMC 7 7

Master's 4 2

1

7

Baccalaureate 30 6

40

Associate 133 13

152

Practical 21 34

Diploma 0 0

TOTAL 197 243 C=Clinical Doctorate; M=Master's/PMC; B=Baccalaureate; D=Diploma; A=Associate; P=Practical

7

8

ACCREDITATION DECISONS Table 2 provides a breakdown of the decisions made by the Board of Commissioners. The table is

organized to illustrate accreditation decision type made per each program type.

TABLE 2

ACEN Board of Commissioners Initial and Continuing Accreditation Decisions, Fall 2017 and Spring 2018

N=304

PROGRAM TYPE C C with

DNPSC

DNPSC

Standalone M

M

with

PMC

PMC

Standalone B A D P TOTAL

Initial Accreditation 1 0 0 2 1 0 5 26 0 10 45

Initial Accreditation Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Continuing Accreditation 1 0 0 2 2 0 12 66 0 10 93

Continuing Accreditation with

Removal of Conditions 0 0 0 1 1 0 6 32 2 10 52


Removal of Warning 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 6


Removal of Good Cause 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Affirm Continuing

Accreditation 1 0 0 0 2 0 13 25 2 6 49


Conditions 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 20 0 3 31


Warning 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Continuing Accreditation for

Good Cause 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 7 0 0 11

Affirm Continuing

Accreditation, Change Status

to Continuing Accreditation

with Conditions

0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 0 2 13

Affirm Continuing



with Warning

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Affirm Continuing



with Good Cause

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2

Continuing Accreditation

Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Programs Reviewed 3 0 0 7 7 0 51 190 4 42 304

C=Clinical Doctorate; DNPSC = Doctorate of Nursing Practice Specialist Certificate; M=Master’s; PMC = Post-Master’s Certificate;

B=Baccalaureate; D=Diploma; A=Associate; P=Practical

8

9

The accreditation decision data contained within Table 1 and Table 2 can be summarized as follows:

197 sites visited

243 programs reviewed

61 Follow-Up Reports received

304 accreditation decisions rendered

The differences in number between site visits and number of program reviewed is due to some visits to

a single location encompassed the review of multiple program types (e.g., one governing institution

having an associate and baccalaureate program under review). In addition, the overall count of

accreditation decisions is a result of some programs accredited by the ACEN having either focused visits

(as a result of a substantive change) or a Follow-Up Report.

It is entirely possible that not only could a single program have multiple accreditation decisions rendered

during a given accreditation cycle, but multiple programs could have a single site visit and multiple

decisions.

As such, in subsequent tables regarding accreditation decisions, the number of programs

reviewed is defined by the variable p; the number of decisions rendered for those programs

is defined by the variable d; standards and criteria are defined as s and c, respectively.

ACCREDITATION PROCESS REVIEW LEVELS Program review is comprised of three independent review levels of peer review: Site Visitors, Evaluation

Review Panel (ERP), and the Board of Commissioners.

At the end of a site visit, the peer evaluators make their recommendation(s) for accreditation. The site

visit team’s recommendation is then made available to the peer evaluators on the Evaluation Review

Panel, who review the information gathered and render their own recommendation. Finally, the site visit

team’s recommendation and the Evaluation Review Panel’s recommendation are available to the ACEN

Board of Commissioners for its consideration in reviewing the programs for continuing accreditation.

Continuing accreditation decisions are classified in the following ways:


Continuing Accreditation with Removal of Conditions

Continuing Accreditation with Removal of Warning

Continuing Accreditation with Removal of Good Cause

Continuing Accreditation with Conditions

Continuing Accreditation with Warning

Continuing Accreditation for Good Cause

Denial of Continuing Accreditation

An accreditation cycle begins with a program's site visit and ends when the Board of Commissioners

makes its decision. This entire process can take 6 – 9 months. Graph 1 illustrates a full year's

accreditation cycles and their respective timelines.

9

10

After the site visit and Evaluation Review Panel, programs have the opportunity to provide any

additional information for select Criteria.

The Self-Study Report, the Site Visit Report and peer evaluators’ recommendation, the Evaluation

Review Panel summary and peer evaluators’ recommendation, and any provided additional information

are then reviewed and considered by the Board of Commissioners, who renders its decision. The Board

of Commissioners has the sole authority to determine the accreditation status of programs.

(For a detailed descriptions of the accreditation process and policies, please consult the ACEN

Accreditation Manual, available at www.acenursing.org)

Table 3 presents the numbers and types of recommendations made by the peer evaluators at all three

levels of review. The table illustrates the consistency in recommendations and the final decision as

evidenced by the minimal variation over the three steps of the process.

Table 3

Accreditation Recommendations/Decisions for the Three Levels of Review

by Program Type, Fall 2017 – Spring 2018

Program Type Number of

Decisions

Site Visit Team

Recommendation

ERP

Recommendation

Board of

Commissioners

Decisions

C 3

I 1 I 1 I 1

ID 0 ID 0 ID 0

C 2 C 2 C 2

C-ROC 0 C-ROC 0 C-ROC 0

C-ROW 0 C-ROW 0 C-ROW 0

C-RGC 0 C-RGC 0 C-RGC 0

CC 0 CC 0 CC 0

CW 0 CW 0 CW 0

CGC 0 CGC 0 CGC 0

CD 0 CD 0 CD 0

10

http://www.acenursing.org/

11

Table 3 cont'd

M/PMC 7

I 1 I 1 I 1

ID 0 ID 0 ID 0

C 3 C 4 C 4




CC 1 CC 0 CC 0

CW 0 CW 0 CW 0

CGC 0 CGC 0 CGC 1

CD 0 CD 1 CD 0

Master's 7

I 2 I 2 I 2

ID 0 ID 0 ID 0

C 2 C 2 C 2




CC 2 CC 2 CC 2

CW 0 CW 0 CW 0

CGC 0 CGC 0 CGC 0

CD 0 CD 0 CD 0

Baccalaureate 51

I 5 I 5 I 5

ID 0 ID 0 ID 0

C 24 C 24 C 25




CC 9 CC 9 CC 9

CW 1 CW 1 CW 0

CGC 0 CGC 0 CGC 4

CD 2 CD 4 CD 0

Associate 190

I 26 I 26 I 26

ID 0 ID 0 ID 0

C 88 C 89 C 91




CC 29 CC 28 CC 28

CW 3 CW 3 CW 1

CGC 0 CGC 0 CGC 8

CD 3 CD 7 CD 0

11

12

Table 3 cont'd

Diploma 4

I 0 I 0 I 0

ID 0 ID 0 ID 0

C 2 C 2 C 2




CC 0 CC 0 CC 0

CW 0 CW 0 CW 0

CGC 0 CGC 0 CGC 0

CD 0 CD 0 CD 0

Practical 42

I 10 I 10 I 10

ID 0 ID 0 ID 0

C 14 C 15 C 16




CC 7 CC 6 CC 5

CW 0 CW 0 CW 0

CGC 0 CGC 0 CGC 0

CD 0 CD 1 CD 0

TOTALS 304

SVR ERP BOC

I 45 I 45 I 45

D 5 D 13 D 0

C 194 C 246 C 259

I = Initial Accreditation, ID = Denial of Initial Accreditation, C = Continuing Accreditation Granted, C-ROC = Continuing Accreditation with

Removal of Conditions, C-ROW = Continuing Accreditation with Removal of Warning, CC = Continuing Accreditation with Conditions

Granted, CW = Continuing Accreditation with Warning, CGC = Continuing Accreditation for Good Cause, CD = Denial of Continuing

Accreditation

12

13

CONTINUING ACCREDITATION WITH CONDITIONS

Continuing accreditation with conditions is granted when a program is found to be in non-compliance

with one or two of any of the six Accreditation Standards.

Table 4 presents data related to the Accreditation Standards with which the Board of Commissioners

determined a program was in non-compliance. Forty-four (44) programs seeking continuing

accreditation were granted continuing accreditation with conditions during the Fall 2017 and Spring

2018 accreditation cycles.

As a result of the Board of Commissioners granting continuing accreditation with conditions, these

programs are required to submit a Follow-Up Report, which may include a Follow-Up Visit, after which,

within a timeframe established by the Board of Commissioners—in accordance with ACEN Policy #4

Types of Commission Actions for Initial and Continuing Accreditation—the Board of Commissioners

will review the Follow-Up Report, Follow-Up Site Visit Report (as applicable), Nurse Administrator

Response Form (NARF; as applicable), Evaluation Review Panel Recommendation, and additional

information (as applicable), and render its decision regarding continuing accreditation.

Table 4

Continuing Accreditation Decision: Continuing Accreditation with Conditions

Standards (s) Found in Non-Compliance by Aggregate and Program Type Fall 2017 – Spring 2018

Total Number of Programs (p) : Continuing Accreditation with Conditions p=44

Total Number of Decisions (d) : Continuing Accreditation with Conditions d=44

Standard

Aggregate

Standards in

Non-

Compliance

PROGRAM TYPE

C M/PMC M B A D P

p=0 p=0 p=2 p=9 p=28 p=0 p=5

d=0 d=0 d=2 d=9 d=28 d=0 d=5

s=0 s=0 s=2 s=12 s=36 s=0 s=6

Standard 1

Mission and

Administrative

Capacity

2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

Standard 2

Faculty and

Staff

4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0

Standard 3

Students 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Standard 4

Curriculum 12 0 0 0 3 8 0 1

Standard 5

Resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Standard 6

Outcomes 38 0 0 2 8 23 0 5

See page 8 for Program Type Abbreviation Definitions

Note: Programs may have multiple standards with which they were found non-compliant.

p = number of programs, d = number of decisions, s = standards (see page 9 for definitions)

13

14

CONTINUING ACCREDITATION WITH WARNING AND

CONTINUING ACCREDITATION FOR GOOD CAUSE

A determination of non-compliance with three or more Accreditation Standards results in the program

being granted continuing accreditation with warning. For programs seeking continuing accreditation

during the Fall 2017 and Spring 2018 accreditation cycles, one program was granted continuing

accreditation with warning.

As a result of the Board of Commissioners granting continuing accreditation with warning, the next

review will include a Follow-Up Report, a Follow-Up Visit, an Evaluation Review Panel recommendation,

and a Board of Commissioners decision.

After the Evaluation Review Panel, within a timeframe established by the Board of Commissioners—in

accordance with ACEN Policy #4 Types of Commission Actions for Initial and Continuing

Accreditation—the Board of Commissioners will review the Follow-Up Report, Follow-Up Site Visit

Report, Nurse Administrator Response Form (NARF), Evaluation Review Panel recommendation, and

additional information (as applicable), and render its decision regarding continuing accreditation.

Table 5 presents data related to the Accreditation Standards with which the Board of Commissioners

determined a program was in non-compliance.

Table 5

Continuing Accreditation Decision: Continuing Accreditation with Warning

Standards (s) Found in Non-Compliance by Aggregate and Program Type

Fall 2017 – Spring 2018

Total Number of Programs (p) : Continuing Accreditation with Warning p=1

Total Number of Decisions (d) : Continuing Accreditation with Warning d=1

Standard

Aggregate

Standards in

Non-

Compliance

PROGRAM TYPE

C M/PMC M B A D P

p=0 p=0 p=0 p=0 p=1 p=0 p=0

d=0 d=0 d=0 d=0 d=1 d=0 d=0

s=0 s=0 s=0 s=0 s=3 s=0 s=0

Standard 1

Mission and

Administrative

Capacity

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Standard 2

Faculty and

Staff

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14

15

Table 5 cont'd

Standard 3

Students 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Standard 4

Curriculum 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Standard 5

Resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Standard 6

Outcomes 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0


Note: Programs may have multiple standards with which they were found to be non-compliant.


Continuing accreditation for good cause is granted for programs on conditions or warning that reached

the end of the maximum monitoring period for conditions and warning. A nursing program’s

accreditation can be extended for good cause if the program meets all three principles for good cause in

accordance with ACEN Policy #4 Types of Commission Actions for Initial and Continuing Accreditation.

Granting the program continuing accreditation for good cause indicates that the program:

(a) has demonstrated significant recent accomplishments in addressing non-compliance;

(b) has the potential to remedy all deficiencies within the extended period as defined by the

Commission; that is, that the program provides evidence that makes it reasonable for the

Board of Commissioners to determine it will remedy all deficiencies within the extended

time defined by the Commission; and,

(c) provides assurance to the Board of Commissioners that it is not aware of any other reasons,

other than those identified by the Commission, why the accreditation of the nursing program

could not be continued for good cause.

For programs seeking continuing accreditation during the 2017 – 2018 accreditation cycles, 11 programs

were granted continuing accreditation for good cause. As a result of the Board of Commissioners

granting continuing accreditation for good cause, the next review will include a Follow-Up Report, a

Follow-Up Visit, an Evaluation Review Panel recommendation, and a Board of Commissioners decision.

After the Evaluation Review Panel, within a timeframe established by the Board of Commissioners—in

accordance with ACEN Policy #4 Types of Commission Actions for Initial and Continuing

Accreditation—the Board of Commissioners will review the Follow-Up Report, Follow-Up Site Visit

Report, Nurse Administrator Response Form (NARF), Evaluation Review Panel recommendation, and

additional information (as applicable), and render its decision regarding continuing accreditation.

15

16

Table 6

Continuing Accreditation Decision: Continuing Accreditation for Good Cause

Standards (s) Found in Non-Compliance by Aggregate and Program Type


Total Number of Programs (p) : Continuing Accreditation for Good Cause p=11

Total Number of Decisions (d) : Continuing Accreditation for Good Cause d=13

Standard

Aggregate

Standards in

Non-

Compliance

PROGRAM TYPE

C M/PMC M B A D P

p=0 p=1 p=0 p=3 p=7 p=0 p=0

d=0 d=1 d=0 d=4 d=8 d=0 d=0

s=0 s=2 s=0 s=5 s=9 s=0 s=0

Standard 1

Mission and

Administrative

Capacity

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Standard 2

Faculty and Staff 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 0

Standard 3

Students 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

Standard 4

Curriculum 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Standard 5

Resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Standard 6

Outcomes 10 0 1 0 2 7 0 0


Note: Programs may have multiple standards with which they were found to be non-compliant.


DENIAL OF INITIAL OR CONTINUING ACCREDITATION Initial accreditation is denied when the Board of Commissioners determines that a program is in non-

compliance with one or more Accreditation Standards. During the 2017 – 2018 accreditation cycles, a

total of 45 programs were seeking initial accreditation. Zero (0) programs seeking initial accreditation

were denied initial accreditation in the 2017 – 2018 accreditation cycles.

Continuing accreditation can be denied at any time by the Board of Commissioners, when the Board of

Commissioners determines that a nursing program on conditions or warning is in continued non-

16

17

compliance with an Accreditation Standard(s), and must be denied when the Board of Commissioners

determines a nursing program is in continued non-compliance with any Accreditation Standard at the

end of its good cause monitoring period. A total of 197 programs were seeking continuing accreditation.

Zero programs seeking continuing accreditation were denied in the 2017 – 2018 accreditation cycles.

Table 7 presents data related to the Accreditation Standards with which programs were found to be in

non-compliance when the Board of Commissioners denied initial or continuing accreditation.

Table 7

Accreditation Decision: Denial of Initial or Continuing Accreditation

Standards (s) Found in Non-Compliance by Aggregate and Program Type (p)


Total Number of Programs Denied=0

Standard

Aggregate

Standards in

Non-

Compliance

PROGRAM TYPE

C M/PMC M B A D P

p=0 p=0 p=0 p=0 p=0 p=0 p=0

d=0 d=0 d=0 d=0 d=0 d=0 d=0

s=0 s=0 s=0 s=0 s=0 s=0 s=0

Standard 1

Mission and

Administrative

Capacity

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Standard 2


Standard 3

Students 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Standard 4

Curriculum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Standard 5

Resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Standard 6

Outcomes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Note: Programs may have multiple standards with which they were found non-compliant.


17

18

Summary of Standards Found to Be in Non-Compliance

Graphs 2 – 5 below display aggregate averages of programs found to be in non-compliance with

Standards 2, 4, and/or 6 based on recommendations (and decisions) made at all three levels of review.

The data are trended back to the Fall 2014 accreditation cycle through the Spring 2018 accreditation

cycle. Since Spring 2018, all programs have been using the 2017 Standards and Criteria.

Since implementation of the 2017 Standards and Criteria in July 2016 for the decisions

made by the Board of Commissioners, there has been a significant decrease of non-

compliance overall, as well as in Standard 2 Faculty and Staff, Standard 4 Curriculum, and

Standard 6 Outcomes.

Graph 2

Graph 3

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

F2014 S2015 F2015 S2016 F2016* S2017* F2017* S2018*

Aggregate Average for Standards 2, 4, 6 Non-ComplianceFor All Programs Types

Fall 2014 through Spring 2018

SVR ERP BOC

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

F2014 S2015 F2015 S2016 F2016* S2017* F2017* S2018*

Standard 2 Non-ComplianceFor All Programs Types


SVR ERP BOC

18

19

Graph 4

Graph 5

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

F2014 S2015 F2015 S2016 F2016* S2017* F2017* S2018*

Standard 4 Non-Compliance For All Program TypesFall 2014 through Spring 2018

SVR ERP BOC

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

F2014 S2015 F2015 S2016 F2016* S2017* F2017* S2018*

Standard 6 Non-ComplianceFor All Programs Types


SVR ERP BOC

19

20

Graph 6 (below) provides a graphical representation of the most common Criteria identified at the

time of the Board of Commissioners' decision as being in non-compliance for the 2017 – 2018

Accreditation Cycle.

Graph 6

FOLLOW-UP REPORTS Programs granted continuing accreditation with conditions, continuing accreditation with warning, or

continuing accreditation for good cause are expected to resolve all non-compliance issues within the

monitoring period granted by the Board of Commissioners. In accordance with ACEN Policy #4 Types

of Commission Actions for Initial and Continuing Accreditation, the Board of Commissioners decision

options are the following:

Program is on

Conditions and at the

end of the maximum

monitoring period

Program is on Warning

and at the end of the

maximum monitoring

period

Program is on Good

Cause and at the end

of the maximum

monitoring period

Board of

Commissioners

Decision

Grant the program:

Continuing

accreditation and

remove conditions

Continuing

accreditation for

good cause

Deny continuing

accreditation

Grant the program:

Continuing

accreditation and

remove warning

Continuing

accreditation for

good cause

Deny continuing

accreditation

Grant the program:

Continuing

accreditation and

remove good cause

Deny continuing

accreditation

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 4.2 4.7 4.3 4.1 2.2 4.9 2.1 3.2 2.4 2.9 3.1 1.5 4.11 3.7 2.5 1.9 1.8 4.8 4.6 2.8 1.6

Criteria Identified at the time of the BOC Decision as being in Non-Compliance

2017 – 2018

Total

20

21

Table 8 provides an overview of Follow-Up Reports reviewed during the Fall 2017 and Spring 2018

accreditation cycles. Of the 61 Follow-Up Reports reviewed, 50 resulted in continuing accreditation

with removal of conditions, warning, or good cause, and zero were denied continuing accreditation. The

remaining 11 were granted continuing accreditation for good cause

Table 8

Review of Submitted Follow-Up Reports


Program Type Aggregate

Reviewed n=61


Removal of Conditions, Warning,

or Good Cause

Continuing Accreditation for

Good Cause Or Denial of


Continuing Accreditation Good Cause Denied

n=50 n=11 n=0

Clinical Doctorate 0 0 0 0

Master's/PMC 0 0 0 0

Master's 3 2 1 0

Baccalaureate 8 5 3 0

Associate 38 31 7 0

Diploma 2 2 0 0

Practical 10 10 0 0

AREAS NEEDING DEVELOPMENT Each program reviewed for initial and continuing accreditation (see page 9 for continuing accreditation

decision types) receives an accreditation decision letter from the Board of Commissioners within 30

days of the decision being rendered. The comprehensive review process may result in a decision that

includes areas needing development (ANDs) for some of the Accreditation Standards.

An area needing development means that the program is in compliance with the Criterion; however,

there is an opportunity for improvement. The identified area(s) needing development provide guidance

for the program’s faculty members to assist them in their efforts to further improve the quality of their

nursing program.

Table 9 presents the aggregated frequency of identified areas needing development by Standard and by

program type. Standard 6 Outcomes has the highest number of areas needing development across all

program types, followed by Standard 4 Curriculum, and Standard 3 Students. As each Standard contains

multiple Criteria, each program may have more than one Criterion identified as an area needing

development; as such, Table 9 is reflective of the aggregate Criteria within each Standard indicated as

needing development.

21

22

Table 9

Standards with Identified Criteria (c) Needing Development by Program Type (p)

Aggregated by Frequency


Standards Aggregate

Program Type

C M/PMC M B A D P

p=2 p=5 p=8 p=29 p=132 p=3 p=32

c=2 c=16 c=36 c=108 c=555 c=6 c=143

Standard 1

Mission and

Administrative

Capacity

71 0 2 3 7 46 0 13

Standard 2


Standard 3

Students 130 0 1 6 12 93 1 17

Standard 4

Curriculum 137 0 7 8 17 78 1 26

Standard 5

Resources 56 0 1 3 7 33 1 11

Standard 6

Outcomes 367 1 5 14 41 238 3 65

TOTAL AREAS

NEEDING

DEVELOPMENT

866 2 16 36 108 555 6 143


Note: Programs may have multiple areas (criteria) needing development for one or more Standards.

p = number of programs, c = number of criteria (see page 9 for definitions)

At first glance, it would seem based on the raw numbers that ACEN-accredited Associate programs far

outnumber other programs for criteria identified as areas needing development. This, however, is

because counts of ANDs are positively correlated with the number of programs under review (e.g., the

more programs reviewed, the greater the number of criteria that could potentially identified as an

AND.)

Adjusting the values in Table 9 to a common scale (in this case, percentages) provides a clearer sense

and more level baseline for measuring and evaluating the number of criteria identified as an AND across

program types, per Graph 7 (below).

These percentages were derived from the number of criteria identified by program type and divided by

total number of possible criteria that could be deemed an AND given the number of programs under

review. As the Graph 7 (below) illustrates, the data, once normalized, show that overall the percentage of

criteria identified ranges from 2 – 10%.

22

23

Graph 7

Graph 8 (below) provides a graphical representation of the most common criteria identified as areas

needing development for the Fall 2017 – Spring 2018 Accreditation Cycles

Graph 8

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

Normalized Percentage of Criteria Identified as Areas Needing Development by Program Type

23

24

SUMMARY The ACEN accreditation process is a vital component in ensuring that ACEN-accredited nursing

programs demonstrate the highest degree of effectiveness in the delivery of quality nursing education.

Further, the results of the implementation of the accreditation process demonstrate that the ACEN

Standards and Criteria continue to provide a framework for the assessment of program quality in a

thorough and effective manner.

Continued and consistent application of the 2017 Standards and Criteria resulted in zero programs

being denied accreditation, while still maintaining the high standard of operation and educational success

required to hold accreditation status with the ACEN. The significant decrease of programs found to be

in non-compliance with Standards 2, 4, and 6 continued as well.

Previous variance in recommendation decisions rendered at the three levels of review have decreased as

well, resulting in recommendations made by the peer evaluators on the site visit team and Evaluation

Review Panels being more consistent with the final decision rendered by the Board of Commissioners.

25

PRESENTATION AND

ANALYSIS OF THE

ACEN ANNUAL REPORT 2017 – 2018 REPORTING PERIOD

ANNUAL REPORT PURPOSE AND USE The ACEN Annual Report is used by the ACEN and many stakeholders to monitor components

essential to the educational quality of ACEN-accredited nursing programs. Additionally, the report

facilitates the communication of trended aggregated data to stakeholders.

This presentation addresses data generated from the 2017 – 2018 reporting period (July 1, 2017 – June

30, 2018) with the exception of enrollment and faculty information, which is based on data available on a

single day (October 15, 2018). To facilitate the presentation, information in this annual report is

presented in sections.

SECTION I Substantive Change: addresses substantive changes within programs.

SECTION II Program Outcomes: tracks achievement of licensure and certification examination

results; rates of program completion; and rates of employment of program graduates.

SECTION III Program Operations: includes data related to student enrollment in the nursing

programs; faculty headcounts and nursing degree demographics; the use of standardized tests; the use of

practice laboratory personnel; the use of simulation; and program length.

RETURN RATE The return rate for the 2017 – 2018 Annual Report was 100%. Submission of an Annual Report is a

requirement for maintaining ACEN accreditation. The submission of reports is monitored closely, and

regular communication occurs between the ACEN and the nurse administrator of the nursing program

to ensure proper reporting. Making ACEN staff available as a supportive resource throughout the

Annual Report process provides for greater consistency in the self-reported data as well as assisting in

collection of submissions.

25

26

SECTION I. Substantive Change For the 2017 – 2018 reporting period, nursing education units reported 831 substantive changes. The

most commonly reported change across all program types was a change in the nurse administrator,

which accounted for 35% (294) of all substantive changes reported. Of the remaining substantive

changes reported, Table 10 displays in aggregate the most commonly reported changes by program

type.

In addition to a change in nurse administrator, changes in curriculum, changes in state board of nursing

approval status, implementation of off-campus instructional sites, and increases in enrollment were the

most frequent substantive changes for all program types during the 2017 – 2018 reporting period.

Table 10

Percentage of Most Commonly Reported Substantive Changes

Among Reported Changes by Program Type

2017 – 2018 Reporting Period

Area of Change

Program Type

Clinical Doctorate Master's/PMC Master's Baccalaureate Associate Diploma Practical

7 13 11 53 239 15 70

Change in Nurse Administrator 2 4 1 27 135 7 44

28.57% 30.77% 9.09% 50.94% 56.49% 46.67% 62.86%

Change in status of the program with

the state regulatory agency for nursing

since 07/01/17 (see ACEN Policy #17)

0 0 0 6 33 1 10

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.32% 13.81% 6.67% 14.29%

Increase in total enrollment of 25% or

greater by headcount in one (1) academic

year for each nursing program offered

3 3 3 7 18 3 7

42.86% 23.08% 27.27% 13.21% 7.53% 20.00% 10.00%

Curriculum revisions involving an

increase, decrease, or substitution of 25%

or greater of the credit hours or clock

hours required for completion of a

nursing program from currently

accepted/approved courses in a nursing

program

1 2 2 3 24 3 3

14.29% 15.38% 18.18% 5.66% 10.04% 20.00% 4.29%

Establishing a new off-campus

instructional site at which students can

obtain 50% or more of the credit hours

or clock hours of a nursing program

0 0 0 5 12 0 4

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.43% 5.02% 0.00% 5.71%

Adding a nursing program option within a

nursing program by deleting and/or

substituting 25% or more of existing

nursing courses to form the new nursing

program option

1 2 3 4 5 1 1

14.29% 15.38% 27.27% 7.55% 2.09% 6.67% 1.43%

Change in ownership, legal status, or

form of control

0 2 2 1 12 0 1

0.00% 15.38% 18.18% 1.89% 5.02% 0.00% 1.43%

26

27

SECTION II. Program Outcomes

Licensure Examination Pass Rates

A review of the data reported by the nursing programs demonstrates that the mean NCLEX-RN and

NCLEX-PN pass rates for graduates of ACEN-accredited programs exceed the National Council of

State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN) published national mean for all program types except baccalaureate

programs. The ACEN-accredited programs were asked to report their NCLEX pass rates as reported

by their state regulatory agency for nursing for 2017.

Table 11 presents NCLEX-PN and NCLEX-RN pass rates as posted by the NCSBN for first-time, U.S.-

educated candidates for years 2013 – 2017.

It should also be noted that the NCSBN revised the passing standard for the following examinations:

NCLEX-RN examination (0.00 logits*) effective April 1, 2016.

NCLEX-PN examination (-0.21 logits*) effective April 1, 2014 *Logit is a unit of measurement to report relative differences between candidate ability estimates and item difficulties

Table 11

NCSBN Reported NCLEX Pass Rates for First-Time U.S.-Educated Candidates

Program Type

2013

National

Average

2014

National

Average

2015

National

Average

2016

National

Average

2017

National

Average

Baccalaureate 85.18% 84.93% 87.49% 87.80% 90.04%

Associate 81.43% 79.26% 82.00% 81.68% 84.24%

Diploma 83.42% 83.28% 85.77% 85.39% 90.23%

Practical 84.63% 82.16% 81.89% 83.73% 83.84%

27

28

Table 12 presents data on NCLEX-RN and NCLEX-PN mean pass rates as reported by ACEN-

accredited programs. A review of the ACEN-accredited program data for NCLEX-RN for reporting

periods 2012 – 2013 through 2017 demonstrates that the performance of graduates from ACEN-

accredited programs are above the national mean, with the exception of baccalaureate programs

Table 12

NCLEX Mean Pass Rate Percentages for First-Time Examination Takers Reported by ACEN-Accredited

Programs by Program Type 2012 – 2017

Program Type 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Baccalaureate 85.57% 86.45% 87.81% 88.04% 88.88%

Associate 84.99% 85.87% 87.46% 87.79% 88.11%

Diploma 86.81% 87.20% 89.87% 90.60% 91.29%

Practical 93.02% 91.31% 90.95% 91.28% 90.64%

Graphs 9 – 12 provide a comparison of NCLEX pass rate data between ACEN-accredited programs

and NCSBN pass rates for first-time U.S.-educated candidates by program type.

Graph 9

82%

83%

84%

85%

86%

87%

88%

89%

90%

91%

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

NCLEX Pass Rate For First Time Test TakersACEN-Accredited Baccalaureate Program

vs NCSBN National Average

ACEN NCSBN National Average

28

29

Graph 10

Graph 11

74%

76%

78%

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

NCLEX Pass Rate For First Time Test TakersACEN-Accredited Associate Programs vs NCSBN National Average


78%

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

92%

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

NCLEX Pass Rate For First Time Test TakersACEN-Accredited Diploma Programs vs NCSBN National Average


29

30

Graph 12

76%

78%

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

92%

94%

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

NCLEX Pass Rate For First Time Test TakersACEN-Accredited Practical Programs vs NCSBN National Average


30

31

Certification Examination Pass Rates

ACEN-accredited graduate programs report pass rates for the certification examinations taken by

graduates of master’s and clinical doctorate programs. As a variety of certifying agencies offer

certification examinations for various nursing specialties, a comparison with any reference group is not

recommended. Graduate APRN nursing program options have been required to collect and analyze data

related to the certification examination pass rates for all APRN options; the ACEN began collecting data

in the annual report related to these rates in 2016. Table 13 presents the data for the certification

examination pass rates for all APRN roles as reported by ACEN-accredited programs.

Table 13

Certification Examination Mean Pass Rate Percentages for First-Time Examination Takers

Reported by Accredited Programs by Certification Examination Pass Rates

2015-2018

Program Type APRN

Master's/PMC

2015 – 2016 90.48%

2016 – 2017 91.43%

2017 – 2018 90.07%

Clinical Doctorate/DNPSC

2015 – 2016 -

2016 – 2017 100%

2017 – 2018 92.67%

Completion Rates

Based on the ACEN definition, the completion rate across all program types is the percentage of

students who graduate within 150% of the stated nursing program length, beginning with the first day of

the first nursing course, which can vary based upon a nursing program option.

The expected level of achievement (ELA) for program completion is determined by the faculty and

reflects student demographics within the program. The program must provide a rationale for the

specified ELA (e.g., 70% within three terms). The rationale must be appropriate for the program. In

setting the ELA for the program completion rate, the program may consider reasons, such as the

historical completion rate for the program, the governing organization’s completion rate for all students,

state completion rate for similar programs, group of peer programs, ACEN data, etc. The ELA should be

high enough as to be genuine and encourage continuous improvement but not so high as to be idealistic

and, thus, unachievable. Peer evaluators make a professional judgment regarding the appropriateness of

the program’s ELA.

Completion rate data collected centered around a particular program's ELA for its completion rate, if

that metric was met or exceeded, and if so, by how much of a margin. Responses were based on a

Likert Scale, with options being a series of percentile ranges both above and below the programs'

indicated ELAs.

Overall, 84.41% of ACEN-accredited programs reported meeting or exceeding their ELA for program

completion rate.

31

32

Graph 13 details the aggregate percentage of programs that reported meeting or exceeding their ELA

for completion based on program type.

Graph 13

Graph 14 illustrates the percentage of programs reporting a particular result relative to their

completion rate and ELA (e.g., meeting the ELA, exceeding the ELA, or not meeting the ELA) and the

distribution of margins related to the programs meeting and/or exceeding, or alternately, failing to meet

their ELA for completion. The majority of programs reported exceeding their ELA by margins of 0.1 –

10%

For those 15.59% of programs who reported not meeting their ELA for completion, 6% reported that

they missed the benchmark by a margin of 0.1 – 5%.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ClinicalDoctorate

Master's/PMC Master's Baccalaureate Associate Dipoma Practical TOTAL

Completion Rate ELA Achievement by Program

% At or Above % Did Not Meet ELA

32

33

Graph 14

Job Placement Rates

The aggregate job placement rate is the percentage of graduates, typically within one year of graduation,

who are employed in a position for which a nursing program prepared them.

The recommended method for calculating Job Placement Rate is to divide the number of graduates

successfully contacted by the number reporting having secured employment in a position for which the

nursing program prepared them. As an example, if a program had 100 graduates, successfully contacted

80 of them, and 79 reported employment in a position for which the nursing program prepared them,

the applicable job placement rate would be 98.75% (79/80).

ACEN data related to aggregate job placement rate show very minor decreases across all program types

for the 2017 – 2018 reporting period, with job placement rates ranging from 86.83 – 95.83% (Table 14).

Analysis of the submitted Annual Reports, Substantive Change Reports, and other data suggests that

reported employment rates may be skewed if reporting programs fail to exclude program graduates

enrolling directly into another type of nursing education program in their calculations of job placement.

The hiring practices of employers in a variety of healthcare organizations may affect the types of

graduates preferred for entry-level positions. Healthcare organizations may choose to hire fewer

graduates from specific program types in a competitive job market. The demonstrated decreases for the

pre-licensure programs range from -0.12% to -2.37% during this latest reporting period (2017 – 2018).

Graduate level programs also decreased approximately -2.07%, while clinical doctorate programs

showed a decrease of -2.34%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

20.1% ormore

below theELA

15.1% to20%

below theELA

10.1% to15%

below theELA

5.1% to10%

below theELA

0.1% to5% belowthe ELA

At ELA 0.1% to5% abovethe ELA

5.1% to10%

above theELA

10.1% to15%

above theELA

15.1% to20%

above theELA

20.1% ormore

above theELA

Distribution of Program Completion Rates In Relation to ELA

33

34

Table 14

Mean Job Placement Rate

2011 – 2018

Program Type

Year

2011 –

2012

2012 –

2013

2013 –

2014

2014 –

2015

2015 –

2016

2016 –

2017

2017 –

2018

Clinical

Doctorate - - - - 98.69% 98.17% 95.83%

Master's/PMC 94.72% 96.17% 95.19% 95.81% 96.17% 89.48% 87.41%

Master's - - - - - - 88.99%

Baccalaureate 93.17% 93.25% 92.81% 92.09% 93.25% 89.98% 88.92%

Associate 86.28% 86.88% 86.64% 88.67% 91.05% 89.20% 86.83%

Diploma 89.72% 88.66% 87.48% 89.98% 93.46% 91.72% 92.32%

Practical 84.38% 84.95% 85.77% 84.94% 90.98% 87.08% 86.96%

While the chart would seem to indicate a decrease in mean job placement rate for the 2017 – 2018

reporting period, as shown in Graph 15 below, all average placement rates for ACEN-accredited

programs show well over 85% of program graduates securing employment in a position for which the

nursing program prepared them.

33 34

35

Graph 15

Despite the statistical decrease of mean job placement rate for nursing programs, the number of

programs reporting that they have met and/or exceeded their ELA for job placement remains high.

The ELA for job placement rate is determined by the faculty based on program demographics, such as

the characteristics of the nursing education unit and the region where the nursing education unit is

located. Program demographic considerations include, but are not limited to program type, local hiring

practices, historical job placement rate, the governing organization’s job placement rate for students in

other health science programs, state job placement rate for similar programs, group of peer programs,

or ACEN data, etc. The ELA should be high enough as to be genuine and encourage continuous

improvement but not so high as to be idealistic and, thus, unachievable. Peer evaluators make a

professional judgment regarding the appropriateness of the program’s ELA.

Average programmatic ELAs for job placement range from 70 – 86%, and the overall percentage of

programs reporting having met their goals are all in excess of 86%.

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018

Year

Mean Job Placement Rate2011 - 2018

Clinical Doctorate Master's/PMC Master's Baccalaureate

Associate Diploma Practical

35

36

Graph 16 illustrates the percentage of programs reporting having met or exceeded their ELA for job

placement along with the average ELA, per program type, as set by each program.

Graph 16

Not all programs reported meeting their ELA for job placement. However, those programs who did not

were asked to provide reasons/explanations. Graph 17 provides a breakdown of the most common

explanations.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ClinicalDoctorate

Master's/PMC Master's Baccalaureate Associate Diploma Practical

Percentage of Programs Meeting or Exceeding their ELA vs. Average ELA per Program Type

% of Progs Meeting or Exceeding their ELA % of Programs Not Meeting their ELA Average ELA

36

37

Graph 17

For programs who selected "Other," the predominant reason offered being that of poor response rate.

Response rate is considered the number of graduates with whom successful contact was actually made,

regardless of communication method.

However, the ACEN guidance for calculation of Job Placement is that program should calculate its job

placement rate on only those responses received.

Other than response rates, the second most commonly reported reason for low job placement

numbers is that graduates are not seeking nursing employment at the time of contact. Instead, the

graduates are pursuing higher education and credentials.

37

38

Graph 18 details average response rates by program type.

Graph 18

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ClinicalDoctorate

Master's/PMC Master's Baccalaureate Associate Diploma Practical

Average Response Rate For Job Placement by Program Type

37 38

39

End-Of-Program Student Learning Outcomes Reporting

Data ACEN-accredited programs are required to report on their End-Of-Program Student Learning

Outcomes data to their constituents. As programs often use multiple methods for reporting, for the

question in the Annual Report, programs were provided the opportunity to select multiple responses.

As End-Of-Program Student Learning reporting methods are not mutually exclusive, totals will exceed

100%.

Table 15 and Graph 19 detail the most common methods used by programs, by program type.

Table 15

End-Of-Program Student Learning Outcomes Sharing Methodologies

by Percentage of Programs Used

2017 – 2018

Program Type Website Advisory Board

Meetings Brochure/publication Other

Clinical Doctorate 53.85% 76.92% 15.38% 15.38%

Master's / PMC 54.35% 91.30% 13.04% 19.57%

Master's 51.72% 82.76% 6.90% 13.79%

Baccalaureate 54.23% 89.55% 16.42% 17.41%

Associate 52.26% 94.39% 16.42% 20.52%

Diploma 57.58% 81.82% 30.30% 33.33%

Practical 47.80% 93.08% 18.87% 16.98%

Graph 19

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ClinicalDoctorate

Master's / PMC Master's Baccalaureate Associate Diploma Practical

End-Of-Program Student Learning Outcomes Reporting Methods by Program Type

Website Advisory Board Meetings Brochure/publication Other

39

40

SECTION III. Program Operations

STUDENT ENROLLMENT

Enrollment data were gathered as of a specific date: October 15, 2018. This was done to ensure as

much uniformity as possible in the data collected.

As Graph 20 illustrates that for the 2017 – 2018 reporting period, the majority of programs had 100 –

250 enrolled in their respective programs in Fall 2018.

Graph 20

.

Graph 21 and Graph 22 illustrate the applicant-to-admission ratios. Overall, applicant-to-admission

ratios range from 55 – 85%; with pre-licensure programs accepting just over half of applicants. This

disparity can be potentially related to the differences in the number of applicants in pre-licensure

program options and post-licensure, graduate, and post-graduate programs.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Average Student Enrollment as of 10/15/2018

40

41

Graph 21

Graph 22

0

50

100

150

200

250

Average Applications vs Average Admitted2017-2018

Average Applied to the Program Average Admitted

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Average Admission Rate

41

42

FACULTY TABLES In the 2017 – 2018 Annual Report, the ACEN requested faculty degree demographics as of October 15,

2018. These demographics included total faculty, both exclusive to the nursing program and shared with

other nursing programs (if shared faculty is applicable), for both full- and part-time faculty, not including

the nurse administrator of the programs. Nursing faculty are nurses who teach and evaluate nursing

students, are academically qualified, and have experience in the content areas in which they teach.

Additionally, the ACEN requested information regarding the highest degree in nursing earned (not to be

confused with highest overall degree) for the faculty for each program.

Table 16 shows the total faculty counts for ACEN-accredited programs, as well as the percentage of

faculty (full- and part-time) exclusive to those programs. Along with those statistics, Table 16 also

includes the nursing credential distribution for faculty.

Table 16

Faculty Exclusivity and Nursing Degree Demographics

Single Program Only

2017 – 2018

Program Type

Total

Faculty

(Exclusive

and

Shared,

FT and

PT)

FT PT

PT :

Total

Faculty

Ratio

%

Exclusive

Doctorate

in Nursing

as their

Highest

Degree

Master's

in

Nursing

as their

Highest

Degree

Baccalaureate

in Nursing as

their Highest

Degree

Associate's

in Nursing

as their

Highest

Degree

Diploma

in

Nursing

as their

Highest

degree

Certificate

in Nursing

as their

Highest

degree

Clinical

Doctorate 73 21 52 71.23% 35.62% 87.67% 9.59% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Master's/PMC 193 104 89 46.11% 46.11% 49.22% 12.95% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Master's 38 21 17 44.74% 63.16% 55.26% 21.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Baccalaureate 1663 1011 652 39.21% 91.70% 26.64% 63.62% 5.35% 0.18% 0.12% 0.00%

Associate 14700 6629 8071 54.90% 93.59% 7.05% 70.94% 21.33% 0.17% 0.01% 0.00%

Diploma 645 437 208 32.25% 98.76% 8.06% 85.27% 6.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Practical 788 375 413 52.41% 90.99% 3.17% 58.50% 36.93% 2.66% 2.41% 0.13%

Pre-licensure programs show a higher percentage of exclusive faculty and lower part-time to full-time

faculty ratios; most faculty hold a master’s degree in nursing as their highest nursing degree.

Conversely, graduate-level programs show far greater ratios of shared and part-time faculty, and

significantly higher percentages of faculty holding doctorate degrees of nursing as their highest nursing

degree.

42

43

Faculty-to-Student Combining faculty data with previously discussed enrollment data, an overall average Faculty-to-Student

ratios for ACEN-accredited programs can be derived. Table 17 details the total number of students

enrolled in ACEN-accredited programs (by program type) as of October 15, 2018, as well as total

faculty employed (exclusive, shared, full-time and part-time) for those programs as well, providing

aggregate Faculty-to-Student ratios.

Table 17

Overall Full-Time Faculty-to-Student Ratios in Aggregate by Program

2017 – 2018

Program Type Total Enrolled Total FT Faculty FT Faculty-to-Student

Ratio

Clinical Doctorate 1,477 21 1 : 70

Master's/PMC 557 104 1 : 5

Master's 2,599 21 1 : 123

Baccalaureate 46,793 1,011 1 : 46

Associate 164,716 6,629 1 : 25

Diploma 5,137 437 1 : 12

Practical 10,860 375 1 : 29

TOTAL 232,139 8,598 1 : 27

43

44

STANDARDIZED TESTING

Data analysis of the programs utilizing standardized testing confirms the continued use of standardized

testing across the pre-licensure programs. Use of standardized testing has increased; for the most part,

use remains higher than 90% for associate, diploma, and practical programs. In addition, data indicate

that roughly 30% of the same program types use standardized testing for progression or graduation

requirements, an increase of 10%.

Note: The ACEN does not endorse or oppose the use of standardized testing. If used, the

ACEN believes that any standardized testing should only be used as the standardized

testing was intended to be used by the test producer.

Table 18 provides an overview of the use of standardized testing across all program types.

Table 18

Use of Standardized Testing by ACEN-Accredited Programs

2014 – 2018

Program Type 2014 – 2015 2015 – 2016 2016 – 2017 2017 – 2018

Clinical Doctorate - 0.00% 0.00% 23.08%

Master's/PMC 22.83% 26.92% 30.56% 52.17%

Master's - - - 13.79%

Baccalaureate 65.90% 61.03% 57.92% 59.20%

Associate 95.75% 94.23% 94.10% 94.80%

Diploma 100.00% 97.50% 93.94% 100.00%

Practical 95.10% 87.32% 92.05% 95.60%

44

45

Graph 23

Of the programs using standardized testing, the majority use standardized testing as an evaluation

method in specific course), though the numbers have decreased in the past year.

Table 19

Use of Standardized Testing as an Evaluation Method by ACEN-Accredited Programs

2014 – 2018

Program Type 2014 – 2015 2015 – 2016 2016 – 2017 2017 – 2018

Clinical Doctorate - - - 66.67%

Master's/PMC 21.74% 90.48% 95.45% 54.17

Master's - - - 100.00

Baccalaureate 62.21% 100.00% 99.14% 73.95%

Associate 91.79% 95.37% 97.45% 67.97%

Diploma 97.62% 93.21% 100.00% 60.61%

Practical 87.41% 89.52% 92.75% 64.47%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018

Use of Standardized Testing by ACEN-Accredited Programs2014 - 2018



45

46

Graph 24

Conversely, the number of programs who use standardized testing as a progression or graduation

requirement has, on average, increased 3 – 7%.

Table 20

Use of Standardized Testing as a Progression or Graduation Requirement by ACEN-Accredited Programs

2014 – 2018

Program Type 2014 – 2015 2015 – 2016 2016 – 2017 2017 – 2018

Clinical Doctorate - - - 33.33%

Master's/PMC 11.96% 19.05% 22.73% 25.00%

Master's - - - 25.00%

Baccalaureate 27.19% 43.08% 42.74% 42.86%

Associate 22.87% 23.02% 21.82% 28.28%

Diploma 30.95% 23.08% 22.58% 27.27%

Practical 16.78% 20.97% 18.12% 30.26%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018

Use of Standardized Testing as an Evaluathion Method by ACEN-Accredited Programs

2014-2018



46

47

Graph 25

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018

Use of Standardized Testing As a Progression or Graduation Requirement for ACEN-Accredited Programs

2014 - 2018



47

48

Graph 26 provides a look at the overall stratagem for standardized testing implemented by ACEN-

accredited programs by illustrating in aggregate the percentages of programs (by program type) that not

only use standardized testing in any capacity, but of those, how many use them as an evaluation method,

and, of those who do, how many use them as a progression or graduation requirement.

As the graph shows, 5 – 20% of all ACEN-accredited programs used standardized testing as a

progression or graduation requirement.

Graph 26

SKILLS / SIMULATION LABORATORIES

Practice learning environments are settings that facilitate students’ application of knowledge, skills, and

behaviors in the care of patients/clients and support the End-Of-Program Student Learning Outcomes

and program outcomes. Settings include, but are not limited to, on-campus skills laboratories, acute-care

and specialty hospitals, long-term care facilities, ambulatory care centers, physician offices, community

and home health care, and on-campus laboratory with low-fidelity, moderate-fidelity, and high-fidelity

simulation.

The use of skills/simulation laboratories continues to be a major teaching modality that is used across

program types, particularly in pre-licensure programs with the greatest percentage of use in the areas of

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Use Standardized Testing Used as Evaluation Method Used as Progression or GraduationRequirement

Standardized Testing Use Funnel By Program Type

Clinical Doctorate Master's/PMC Baccalaureate Associate Diploma Practical

48

49

skills check-off and clinical learning experiences amongst all program types. With the exception of

baccalaureate programs, use of skills/simulation laboratories increased for all programs.

Programs identified that simulation is used most often as part of a class or for the evaluation of required

nursing skills. Table 21 presents the percentage by program type that use simulation in the curriculum.

Table 21

Use of Skills / Simulation Laboratories

Program Type 2016 – 2017 2017 – 2018

Clinical Doctorate n=13 30.77% 46.15%

Master's/PMC n=46 61.97% 78.26%

Master's n=29 - 41.38%

Baccalaureate n=201 87.56% 73.13%

Associate n=731 98.31% 99.72%

Diploma n=33 96.97% 100%

Practical n=159 83.89% 98.74%

Laboratory Personnel

As defined previously, nursing faculty are nurses who teach and evaluate nursing students, are

academically qualified, and have experience in the content areas in which they teach. Laboratory

personnel are individuals without teaching or evaluation responsibilities of students who work in a

skills/simulation laboratory with specified expertise that supports and/or facilitates student learning

experiences in a skills/simulation laboratory.

The use of personnel in nursing skills laboratories is consistent across all program types with nearly

100% programs reporting the use of personnel in the nursing skills/simulation laboratories. Universally,

across all program types, programs reported utilizing only faculty as the most common type of

personnel in the practice laboratory, with a combination of faculty and staff being the second-most

common type.

Table 22 is an overview of the types of personnel used in nursing skills and simulation laboratories

across all program types.

Table 22

Types of Personnel Used in Nursing Skill Laboratories

2017 – 2018

Program Type Staff Faculty Combination of Staff and Faculty Other

Clinical Doctorate n=13 0.00% 66.67% 16.67% 16.67%

Master's/PMC n=46 2.78% 55.56% 38.89% 2.78%

Master's n=29 8.33% 66.67% 16.67% 8.33%

Baccalaureate n=201 4.76% 48.98% 45.58% 0.68%

Associate n=731 4.25% 56.38% 37.86% 1.51%

Diploma n=33 0.00% 75.76% 24.24% 0.00%

Practical n=159 2.55% 68.15% 28.03% 1.27%

49

50

On average, approximately 5% of programs report “Other” for personnel used in skills laboratories.

“Other” for the purposes of this report can encompass a variety of options, ranging from not having

nursing skill laboratories, not using personnel in the laboratories, to utilizing preceptors or tutors.

PROGRAM LENGTH

The three most common types of terms – semesters, quarters, and trimesters – are represented in

ACEN-accredited programs. Respondents provided data regarding the length of their respective

programs from the beginning of the nursing program (including prerequisites) to completion.

Graph 27 shows the most-common average program length in semesters by program type (and option,

where applicable) for ACEN-accredited programs; as quarters and trimesters are used so infrequently

by ACEN-accredited programs Graph 27 summarizes only semesters as they are the most common

type of term.

Practical programs require, on average, approximately one-and-a-half years to complete (three

semesters), diploma and associate programs tend to run 2 – 3 years (5 – 6 semesters), baccalaureate

programs are usually four years (eight semesters) – the notable exception being post-licensure

programs, which are typically two years on average (four semesters). Master’s programs range generally

from 2 – 3 years (4 – 6 semesters, depending on program option), PMC programs 1 – 2 years (3 – 4

semesters, depending on program option) and clinical doctorate programs range from 3 – 5 years in

general (six for post-master's clinical doctorate and 10 for BSN-to-DNP programs).

Graph 27

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Program Length in Semesters

50

51

Average aggregate program length data by credit hour is shown in Graph 28. It should be noted that

program length by credit hour assumes a certain credit hour-per-semester ratio, which is driven by the

program being offered full-time or part-time.

Graph 28

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Program Length in Credit Hours

51

52

CONCLUSIONS

ACEN-accredited programs continue to demonstrate positive outcomes for students, including the

success rates for the licensure and certification examinations as well as high program completion rates

and job placement rates.

The key takeaways being:

Mean Licensure Pass Rates for the majority of ACEN-accredited programs continue to surpass

the National Average;

Graduate Program Certification Examination Pass Rates for ACEN-accredited programs remain

90% or higher;

Program Completion Rates Have Remained Consistent, with 84% of ACEN-accredited

programs reporting meeting or exceeding their ELAs;

Job Placement Rates for ACEN-accredited programs are at least 85% or higher, and 90% of

programs report meeting or exceeding their ELAs for job placement;

Web postings and Advisory Board Meetings are the methods favored by ACEN-accredited

programs for providing End-of-Program Student Learning Outcomes;

Applicant-to-admission ratios range from 55-85%, with the overall average admission rate for

ACEN-accredited programs being approximately 68%;

The majority of faculty teaching in undergraduate programs hold a master's degree in nursing as

their highest nursing degree earned and the majority of faculty teaching in graduate programs

hold a doctorate in nursing as their highest nursing degree earned;

In aggregate, reported Faculty-to-Student ratios on average around1:27 for ACEN-accredited

programs;

Use of standardized testing has increased across programs, but use of standardized testing as an

evaluation method has decreased;

Use of skills/simulation laboratories has increased, on average, by approximately 11% across

ACEN-accredited programs;

Based on the review of the data as reported, the ACEN Accreditation Standards and Criteria have

clearly demonstrated effectiveness in providing a framework and context for ACEN-accredited nursing

programs embracing quality assurance and quality improvement through the ACEN's peer-review

process to become stronger programs through standards of educational quality specific to nursing

education.

Documents

ACCREDITATION COMMISSION FOR EDUCATION IN NURSING · 2019-11-16 · 7 ACCREDITATION PROCESS AND OUTCOMES FALL 2017 – SPRING 2018 ACCREDITATION CYCLE OVERVIEW One hundred ninety-seven