SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE
Precepting nurse practitioner students: A new view—Results of two national surveys of nurse practitioner preceptors Mary Ellen Roberts, DNP, RN, ANP-C, FAANP, FNAP, FAAN (Assistant Professor)1 , Kathy J. Wheeler, PhD, RN, APRN, FNP-C, FNAP, FAANP (Assistant Professor)2 , Diane O. Tyler, PhD, RN, FNP-C, FNP-BC, FAAN, FAANP, CAE (Director)3 , & Diane L. Padden, PhD, RN, CRNP, FAANP (Vice President)4 1
College of Nursing, Seton Hall University, South Orange, New Jersey College of Nursing, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 3 American Academy of Nurse Practitioners Certification Board, Austin, Texas 4 American Association of Nurse Practitioners, Austin, Texas 2
Keywords Nurse practitioners; preceptor; precepting; education; descriptive research. Correspondence Mary Ellen Roberts, DNP, RN, ANP-C, FAANP, FNAP, FAAN, College of Nursing, Seton Hall University, 400 South Orange Avenue, South Orange, NJ 07079. Tel: 973-202-1616; E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Received: 1 April 2017; accepted: 1 May 2017 doi: 10.1002/2327-6924.12482
Abstract Purpose: The aim of two national studies was to identify characteristics of nurse practitioners (NPs) who precept and the benefits, incentives, and barriers associated with the NP preceptor role. Methods: Stratified randomized sampling was used to invite a representative number of NPs from each state to participate in a 2015 survey and a follow-up survey in 2016. These descriptive, exploratory studies distributed electronic questionnaires to 5000 randomly selected NPs in the 2015 survey and 40,000 NPs in the 2016 survey. Responses from 10.9% (n = 548) and 9.9% (n = 3970), respectively, were analyzed. Conclusions: The findings show strong support among our NP colleagues to assist with educating future NPs. Several benefits, barriers, and motivators among stakeholders were identified that need to be considered when working with preceptors. Implications for practice: This study provides a basis for understanding the current climate in education when working with clinical preceptors. Many areas become apparent where NP education could enhance the experience for both the student and the preceptor. Educational settings need to consider preceptor time, issues with online learning, and the rise of specialty practices. Offering incentives linked to the most valued, positive aspects of the role and methods to overcome barriers should be explored.
Introduction Precepting, and the clinical knowledge and skill it provides, is a fundamental part of nurse practitioner (NP) education. As NP programs have grown, with increasing numbers of students, the need for qualified, engaged preceptors has escalated. The role of the preceptor has become even more critical as NP programs trend toward distance education and direct, personal interaction with NP faculty and student collegial socialization is reduced. Simultaneously, preceptors are under more work constraints, causing them to eliminate or reduce availability for precepting. Some might describe the situation as a crisis. Consequently, there is a need to understand preceptor climate—the barriers and motivators related to C 2017 American Association of Nurse Practitioners
precepting, innovative solutions, and the exposure and attitude preceptors have toward these solutions.
Background Precepting is a long-standing, effective method of clinical education. Previously, it has been a one-to-one educational relationship between an experienced clinician and a student (Goldenberg, 1987/1988). Kramer first applied the term to nursing education in 1974 (Kramer, 1974). Preceptors refine clinical judgment skills, perfect psychomotor skills, model professional behavior, and shape role identification in real-world situations of students under their tutelage. Typically, preceptors for NPs have included 1
Precepting NP students
experienced NPs, physicians, and physician assistants, usually on a voluntary basis (Webb, Lopez, & Guarino, 2015). According to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), NPs are essential and will be increasingly utilized to fill the need for providers of care (RWJF, 2012). After 2 years of study, the RWJF and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) produced The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health, a report emphasizing the urgency and potential for nursing to transform the U.S. healthcare system. This report, as well as the Affordable Care Act of 2010, has led to a sharp increase in demand for NPs (National Academies of Sciences, 2010). Forsberg, Swartwout, Murphy, Danko, and Delaney (2015) suggest several specific reasons for this increasing demand: (a) recognition of NP abilities, (b) health insurance expansion, (c) need for NPs in the hospital because of reduced physician intern and residency hours, (d) need for more care coordination and management of chronic disease, and (e) limited growth in supply of physicians. The 2015 Annual Report of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) notes burgeoning growth in programs and students, with strong movement away from master’s-level education to doctoral education via Doctorate of Nursing Practice (DNP) programs. Between 2013 and 2014, DNP programs grew by 26%, with more than 18,000 enrolled students. One reason programs have grown is the trend toward distance education delivery models. In 2013, AACN reported 86% of Masters of Science programs delivered at least some portion of the program via distance learning (DL). This education format provides students in rural and isolated settings an opportunity to advance to roles otherwise not feasible while simultaneously developing providers in remote communities. Additionally, faculty contribute by sharing their expertise of caring for patients in these communities. Distance education allows nurses to advance in the role via a stepwise approach, leveraging one level of education into obtaining a higher level of education. However, with less direct face-to-face exposure to program faculty, the preceptor is often the primary professional role model to students, adding to the preceptor’s burden of effort. Growth of the NP profession has led to an even greater need for qualified preceptors. However, most programs report problems in both finding and retaining preceptors. According to the advanced practice registered nurses (APRN) White Paper (AACN, 2015), over 60% of NP programs reported extreme concern over the ability to obtain clinical sites and 59% reported problems finding qualified preceptors. A variety of reasons exist for the difficulty in finding preceptors, some old and some evolving. For example, the increased pressure to see more patients daily, plus the time and quality demands related to electronic medical records 2
M. E. Roberts et al.
(EMR) continue to be burdens for providers. Not only has the EMR consumed precious time from the preceptor, it has burdened the student who has had to spend time learning a new system with each clinical site, only to then be limited in use by regulatory barriers. These issues, when layered on top of the education of precepting, slows down the clinical process for the preceptor, who then must choose to lower the number of patients seen daily, or see the same panel of patients but add time to the clinical day (Amella, Brown, Resnick, & McArthur, 2001; Christner et al., 2016). Preceptors also feel poorly supported in efforts to precept, with limited resources and minimal communication from the programs for which they are precepting students. Despite the barriers, most who precept report enjoying the process, see value in it, and often continue to participate (Logan, Kovacs, & Barry, 2015). To counter the preceptor problem, stakeholders have developed many creative solutions. For instance, most certifying bodies now allow NPs to use precepting for certification renewal, a small reward but also a recognition of the educational value to the preceptor (American Academy of Nurse Practitioners Certification Board [AANPCB], 2017; ANCC, 2017). Many programs offer small services and acknowledgements—library privileges, access to continuing education programs, academic credentials, and certificates of appreciation. Some programs have long established relationships with loyal preceptors. At times these relationships have been exclusive between the clinical entity and the NP program. Although this has eliminated competing programs or students, it has served the contracting parties. Additionally, on occasion, some programs have paid their preceptor (Multi-Discipline Clerkship/Clinical Training Site Survey, 2014). In 2012, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) started the Graduate Nurse Education Demonstration Project that provided the means for five centers in the United States to educate advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) and support preceptors for 4 years. Each center received $50 million annually (CMS, 2015). Although the effects of the project are still under analysis, no one can deny such ongoing support might be beneficial rather than the current voluntary system. Since 1965, physician education has been consistently supported by CMS through the multibillion dollar Graduate Medical Education Program (Association of American Colleges [AAMC], 2015). NP students have also taken on the task of finding preceptors directly or joining agencies to find preceptors for them, sometimes paying only a finder’s fee but sometime paying the preceptor. Some schools and agencies have formed consortia to connect preceptors and students. In 2015, to illuminate the crisis of NP education, the AACN produced a White Paper, Current State of APRN Clinical Education. This article provided an analysis of preceptor
Precepting NP students
M. E. Roberts et al.
issues and educational trends that were being used or have the potential to alleviate the problem. The list included the following: increased interprofessional or team-based education, simulation techniques, regional preceptor consortia, and increased preceptor–student ratios. The AACN White Paper also highlighted academicpractice partnerships, a formalized education agreement between healthcare institutions and schools of nursing (AACN, 2015). In 2012, AACN partnered with the American Organization of Nurse Executives (AONE) to produce principles to guide such partnerships (American Association of Colleges of Nursing, American Organization of Nurse Executives Task Force, 2012). At present, the only known such partnership at the graduate level exists between the University of Kentucky College of Nursing and Norton Healthcare in Louisville, Kentucky (Powell, 2014). The 5-year partnership will educate 150 NPs drawn from the ranks of Norton nursing staff and precepted by Norton NPs and physicians. Graduates will remain Norton employees while building a strong provider service network. Partnerships like this have the advantage over tuition payment employment benefit systems because the NPs will return to work there once educated, thereby producing a return on investment. There is limited research on precepting and potential solutions. Preceptor surveys to date have been small or geographically limited. Consequently, there is a need to more fully understand preceptor climate on a national level.
Purpose To address some of these concerns two national surveys of NPs were conducted in collaboration with the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP). The first survey was distributed in 2015 with primary aims of identifying (a) characteristics of NPs who precept, (b) exposure and interest in innovative teaching and precepting models, (c) incentives and benefits that best support their preceptor role, and (d) interest in participating in a national NP registry. In a separate survey, follow-up questions to further explore and clarify barriers, resources needed, and preferred communication methods with preceptors were added to the 2016 AANP National NP Sample Survey.
Methods This report includes results of two surveys conducted by sampling AANP members. The methodology for both surveys was essentially identical.
Design These descriptive, exploratory studies used electronic questionnaires to survey 5000 and 40,000 randomly
selected NPs in the 2015 and 2016 surveys, respectively. Stratified randomized sampling was used to invite a representative number of NPs from each state.
Questionnaires The 2015 survey contained 31 items that were constructed based on issues identified in the preceptor literature. Additional items for the 2016 survey were based on findings from the 2015 survey. The questionnaires were reviewed by AANP research staff and pretested with 10 NP faculty and preceptors.
Procedures Internal Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained from the principal investigator’s university for both surveys. The AANP research department distributed the surveys by email to randomly selected association members to achieve the stratified sampling by state. The email included a cover letter that served as the informed consent and contained a link to the surveys.
Analysis Descriptive statistics were used to describe the samples and analyze the data. For items with an option to enter comments, content analysis was used to describe the text data.
Samples A total of 548 NPs completed the 2015 survey (10.9% response rate). See Table 1 for characteristics of this sample. Mean age was 50.7 years, ranging from 23 to 77 years. Approximately 10% were males (9.4%). The sample primarily resided in the Midwest (MW), Southeast (SE), and Northeast (NE). Delaware and Wyoming were the only states with no participants. One NP reported being in the military and two were in U.S. territories. Demographics and descriptive statistics for the 2016 NP Preceptor Survey are published on the AANP website (https://www.aanp.org/research/reports) in the members only area (see 2016 AANP National NP Sample Survey Report). A total of 3970 respondents completed the survey for a response rate of 9.9%. The mean age was 49 years, 92% were females, and median years of experience in NP practice ranged from 5 to 16 years (midpoint 11 years), similar to the 2015 survey demographics. The AANP summary statistics to the preceptor items on the questionnaire were reported as percentages, therefore, percentages will be used here in reporting 2016 survey data. 3
Precepting NP students
M. E. Roberts et al.
Table 1 2015 Survey sample characteristics Mean age: 50.7 (range 23–77) Gender: F = 494 (90.6%), M = 51 (9.4%) Mean years as RN prior to NP: 13.3 (n = 524) Mean years as NP: 11.1 (n = 539) Practice settings (n = 541): Ambulatory care Inpatient/acute End-of-life/LTC/home Military/VA/government Not practicing
a
n 332 113 27 53 16
% 61.4 20.8 5.0 9.8 3.0
Highest education (n = 545) n Premaster’s Master’s Postmaster’s Doctorate: DNP PhD DNSc Other
Certification (Yes = 539; No = 9) n
%
6 390 24
1.1 71.6 4.4
84 36 2 3
15.4 6.6 0.4 0.5
FNP ANP/GNP PNP WHNP PMHNP NNP Specialty
360 152 15 14 10 3 74
Regions n
%a 65.7 27.7 2.7 2.6 1.8 0.5 13.5
NE MW NW SE S. Central SW Other
91 120 43 109 89 45 3
% 18.3 24.1 8.6 21.9 17.9 9.1 0.1
Totals > 100% because of NPs with multiple certifications.
Results
Table 2 Benefits of being a preceptor (n = 404)
2015 Survey results
Benefits ranked most to least valued by preceptor • Learn about current clinical guidelines • Learn about new medications • Access to online clinical materials • Access to CE programs • Develop a relationship with NP faculty • Preceptor training • Opportunity to take a course • Adjunct faculty status • Library privileges • Opportunity to guest lecture • Discount in school bookstore
Characteristics of NPs who serve as preceptors for NP students. The respondents were predominantly females (90.6%), master’s prepared (71.6%), certified family NPs (65.7%), and practicing in ambulatory care settings (61.4%).
Experience The average number of years as an NP was 11.13 (range: >1–55 years), with a mean of 13.3 years as an RN before becoming an NP (range:
Precepting nurse practitioner students: A new view—Results of two national surveys of nurse practitioner preceptors Mary Ellen Roberts, DNP, RN, ANP-C, FAANP, FNAP, FAAN (Assistant Professor)1 , Kathy J. Wheeler, PhD, RN, APRN, FNP-C, FNAP, FAANP (Assistant Professor)2 , Diane O. Tyler, PhD, RN, FNP-C, FNP-BC, FAAN, FAANP, CAE (Director)3 , & Diane L. Padden, PhD, RN, CRNP, FAANP (Vice President)4 1
College of Nursing, Seton Hall University, South Orange, New Jersey College of Nursing, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 3 American Academy of Nurse Practitioners Certification Board, Austin, Texas 4 American Association of Nurse Practitioners, Austin, Texas 2
Keywords Nurse practitioners; preceptor; precepting; education; descriptive research. Correspondence Mary Ellen Roberts, DNP, RN, ANP-C, FAANP, FNAP, FAAN, College of Nursing, Seton Hall University, 400 South Orange Avenue, South Orange, NJ 07079. Tel: 973-202-1616; E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Received: 1 April 2017; accepted: 1 May 2017 doi: 10.1002/2327-6924.12482
Abstract Purpose: The aim of two national studies was to identify characteristics of nurse practitioners (NPs) who precept and the benefits, incentives, and barriers associated with the NP preceptor role. Methods: Stratified randomized sampling was used to invite a representative number of NPs from each state to participate in a 2015 survey and a follow-up survey in 2016. These descriptive, exploratory studies distributed electronic questionnaires to 5000 randomly selected NPs in the 2015 survey and 40,000 NPs in the 2016 survey. Responses from 10.9% (n = 548) and 9.9% (n = 3970), respectively, were analyzed. Conclusions: The findings show strong support among our NP colleagues to assist with educating future NPs. Several benefits, barriers, and motivators among stakeholders were identified that need to be considered when working with preceptors. Implications for practice: This study provides a basis for understanding the current climate in education when working with clinical preceptors. Many areas become apparent where NP education could enhance the experience for both the student and the preceptor. Educational settings need to consider preceptor time, issues with online learning, and the rise of specialty practices. Offering incentives linked to the most valued, positive aspects of the role and methods to overcome barriers should be explored.
Introduction Precepting, and the clinical knowledge and skill it provides, is a fundamental part of nurse practitioner (NP) education. As NP programs have grown, with increasing numbers of students, the need for qualified, engaged preceptors has escalated. The role of the preceptor has become even more critical as NP programs trend toward distance education and direct, personal interaction with NP faculty and student collegial socialization is reduced. Simultaneously, preceptors are under more work constraints, causing them to eliminate or reduce availability for precepting. Some might describe the situation as a crisis. Consequently, there is a need to understand preceptor climate—the barriers and motivators related to C 2017 American Association of Nurse Practitioners
precepting, innovative solutions, and the exposure and attitude preceptors have toward these solutions.
Background Precepting is a long-standing, effective method of clinical education. Previously, it has been a one-to-one educational relationship between an experienced clinician and a student (Goldenberg, 1987/1988). Kramer first applied the term to nursing education in 1974 (Kramer, 1974). Preceptors refine clinical judgment skills, perfect psychomotor skills, model professional behavior, and shape role identification in real-world situations of students under their tutelage. Typically, preceptors for NPs have included 1
Precepting NP students
experienced NPs, physicians, and physician assistants, usually on a voluntary basis (Webb, Lopez, & Guarino, 2015). According to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), NPs are essential and will be increasingly utilized to fill the need for providers of care (RWJF, 2012). After 2 years of study, the RWJF and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) produced The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health, a report emphasizing the urgency and potential for nursing to transform the U.S. healthcare system. This report, as well as the Affordable Care Act of 2010, has led to a sharp increase in demand for NPs (National Academies of Sciences, 2010). Forsberg, Swartwout, Murphy, Danko, and Delaney (2015) suggest several specific reasons for this increasing demand: (a) recognition of NP abilities, (b) health insurance expansion, (c) need for NPs in the hospital because of reduced physician intern and residency hours, (d) need for more care coordination and management of chronic disease, and (e) limited growth in supply of physicians. The 2015 Annual Report of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) notes burgeoning growth in programs and students, with strong movement away from master’s-level education to doctoral education via Doctorate of Nursing Practice (DNP) programs. Between 2013 and 2014, DNP programs grew by 26%, with more than 18,000 enrolled students. One reason programs have grown is the trend toward distance education delivery models. In 2013, AACN reported 86% of Masters of Science programs delivered at least some portion of the program via distance learning (DL). This education format provides students in rural and isolated settings an opportunity to advance to roles otherwise not feasible while simultaneously developing providers in remote communities. Additionally, faculty contribute by sharing their expertise of caring for patients in these communities. Distance education allows nurses to advance in the role via a stepwise approach, leveraging one level of education into obtaining a higher level of education. However, with less direct face-to-face exposure to program faculty, the preceptor is often the primary professional role model to students, adding to the preceptor’s burden of effort. Growth of the NP profession has led to an even greater need for qualified preceptors. However, most programs report problems in both finding and retaining preceptors. According to the advanced practice registered nurses (APRN) White Paper (AACN, 2015), over 60% of NP programs reported extreme concern over the ability to obtain clinical sites and 59% reported problems finding qualified preceptors. A variety of reasons exist for the difficulty in finding preceptors, some old and some evolving. For example, the increased pressure to see more patients daily, plus the time and quality demands related to electronic medical records 2
M. E. Roberts et al.
(EMR) continue to be burdens for providers. Not only has the EMR consumed precious time from the preceptor, it has burdened the student who has had to spend time learning a new system with each clinical site, only to then be limited in use by regulatory barriers. These issues, when layered on top of the education of precepting, slows down the clinical process for the preceptor, who then must choose to lower the number of patients seen daily, or see the same panel of patients but add time to the clinical day (Amella, Brown, Resnick, & McArthur, 2001; Christner et al., 2016). Preceptors also feel poorly supported in efforts to precept, with limited resources and minimal communication from the programs for which they are precepting students. Despite the barriers, most who precept report enjoying the process, see value in it, and often continue to participate (Logan, Kovacs, & Barry, 2015). To counter the preceptor problem, stakeholders have developed many creative solutions. For instance, most certifying bodies now allow NPs to use precepting for certification renewal, a small reward but also a recognition of the educational value to the preceptor (American Academy of Nurse Practitioners Certification Board [AANPCB], 2017; ANCC, 2017). Many programs offer small services and acknowledgements—library privileges, access to continuing education programs, academic credentials, and certificates of appreciation. Some programs have long established relationships with loyal preceptors. At times these relationships have been exclusive between the clinical entity and the NP program. Although this has eliminated competing programs or students, it has served the contracting parties. Additionally, on occasion, some programs have paid their preceptor (Multi-Discipline Clerkship/Clinical Training Site Survey, 2014). In 2012, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) started the Graduate Nurse Education Demonstration Project that provided the means for five centers in the United States to educate advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) and support preceptors for 4 years. Each center received $50 million annually (CMS, 2015). Although the effects of the project are still under analysis, no one can deny such ongoing support might be beneficial rather than the current voluntary system. Since 1965, physician education has been consistently supported by CMS through the multibillion dollar Graduate Medical Education Program (Association of American Colleges [AAMC], 2015). NP students have also taken on the task of finding preceptors directly or joining agencies to find preceptors for them, sometimes paying only a finder’s fee but sometime paying the preceptor. Some schools and agencies have formed consortia to connect preceptors and students. In 2015, to illuminate the crisis of NP education, the AACN produced a White Paper, Current State of APRN Clinical Education. This article provided an analysis of preceptor
Precepting NP students
M. E. Roberts et al.
issues and educational trends that were being used or have the potential to alleviate the problem. The list included the following: increased interprofessional or team-based education, simulation techniques, regional preceptor consortia, and increased preceptor–student ratios. The AACN White Paper also highlighted academicpractice partnerships, a formalized education agreement between healthcare institutions and schools of nursing (AACN, 2015). In 2012, AACN partnered with the American Organization of Nurse Executives (AONE) to produce principles to guide such partnerships (American Association of Colleges of Nursing, American Organization of Nurse Executives Task Force, 2012). At present, the only known such partnership at the graduate level exists between the University of Kentucky College of Nursing and Norton Healthcare in Louisville, Kentucky (Powell, 2014). The 5-year partnership will educate 150 NPs drawn from the ranks of Norton nursing staff and precepted by Norton NPs and physicians. Graduates will remain Norton employees while building a strong provider service network. Partnerships like this have the advantage over tuition payment employment benefit systems because the NPs will return to work there once educated, thereby producing a return on investment. There is limited research on precepting and potential solutions. Preceptor surveys to date have been small or geographically limited. Consequently, there is a need to more fully understand preceptor climate on a national level.
Purpose To address some of these concerns two national surveys of NPs were conducted in collaboration with the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP). The first survey was distributed in 2015 with primary aims of identifying (a) characteristics of NPs who precept, (b) exposure and interest in innovative teaching and precepting models, (c) incentives and benefits that best support their preceptor role, and (d) interest in participating in a national NP registry. In a separate survey, follow-up questions to further explore and clarify barriers, resources needed, and preferred communication methods with preceptors were added to the 2016 AANP National NP Sample Survey.
Methods This report includes results of two surveys conducted by sampling AANP members. The methodology for both surveys was essentially identical.
Design These descriptive, exploratory studies used electronic questionnaires to survey 5000 and 40,000 randomly
selected NPs in the 2015 and 2016 surveys, respectively. Stratified randomized sampling was used to invite a representative number of NPs from each state.
Questionnaires The 2015 survey contained 31 items that were constructed based on issues identified in the preceptor literature. Additional items for the 2016 survey were based on findings from the 2015 survey. The questionnaires were reviewed by AANP research staff and pretested with 10 NP faculty and preceptors.
Procedures Internal Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained from the principal investigator’s university for both surveys. The AANP research department distributed the surveys by email to randomly selected association members to achieve the stratified sampling by state. The email included a cover letter that served as the informed consent and contained a link to the surveys.
Analysis Descriptive statistics were used to describe the samples and analyze the data. For items with an option to enter comments, content analysis was used to describe the text data.
Samples A total of 548 NPs completed the 2015 survey (10.9% response rate). See Table 1 for characteristics of this sample. Mean age was 50.7 years, ranging from 23 to 77 years. Approximately 10% were males (9.4%). The sample primarily resided in the Midwest (MW), Southeast (SE), and Northeast (NE). Delaware and Wyoming were the only states with no participants. One NP reported being in the military and two were in U.S. territories. Demographics and descriptive statistics for the 2016 NP Preceptor Survey are published on the AANP website (https://www.aanp.org/research/reports) in the members only area (see 2016 AANP National NP Sample Survey Report). A total of 3970 respondents completed the survey for a response rate of 9.9%. The mean age was 49 years, 92% were females, and median years of experience in NP practice ranged from 5 to 16 years (midpoint 11 years), similar to the 2015 survey demographics. The AANP summary statistics to the preceptor items on the questionnaire were reported as percentages, therefore, percentages will be used here in reporting 2016 survey data. 3
Precepting NP students
M. E. Roberts et al.
Table 1 2015 Survey sample characteristics Mean age: 50.7 (range 23–77) Gender: F = 494 (90.6%), M = 51 (9.4%) Mean years as RN prior to NP: 13.3 (n = 524) Mean years as NP: 11.1 (n = 539) Practice settings (n = 541): Ambulatory care Inpatient/acute End-of-life/LTC/home Military/VA/government Not practicing
a
n 332 113 27 53 16
% 61.4 20.8 5.0 9.8 3.0
Highest education (n = 545) n Premaster’s Master’s Postmaster’s Doctorate: DNP PhD DNSc Other
Certification (Yes = 539; No = 9) n
%
6 390 24
1.1 71.6 4.4
84 36 2 3
15.4 6.6 0.4 0.5
FNP ANP/GNP PNP WHNP PMHNP NNP Specialty
360 152 15 14 10 3 74
Regions n
%a 65.7 27.7 2.7 2.6 1.8 0.5 13.5
NE MW NW SE S. Central SW Other
91 120 43 109 89 45 3
% 18.3 24.1 8.6 21.9 17.9 9.1 0.1
Totals > 100% because of NPs with multiple certifications.
Results
Table 2 Benefits of being a preceptor (n = 404)
2015 Survey results
Benefits ranked most to least valued by preceptor • Learn about current clinical guidelines • Learn about new medications • Access to online clinical materials • Access to CE programs • Develop a relationship with NP faculty • Preceptor training • Opportunity to take a course • Adjunct faculty status • Library privileges • Opportunity to guest lecture • Discount in school bookstore
Characteristics of NPs who serve as preceptors for NP students. The respondents were predominantly females (90.6%), master’s prepared (71.6%), certified family NPs (65.7%), and practicing in ambulatory care settings (61.4%).
Experience The average number of years as an NP was 11.13 (range: >1–55 years), with a mean of 13.3 years as an RN before becoming an NP (range:
