Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Program Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears request to clarify BRN role in nurse‑midwifery education reviews
Summary
A committee member asked BRN staff to explain how nurse‑midwifery education program reviews have been handled; staff said BRN does not have statutory approval authority for CNM programs and historically provided voluntary reviews on request.
A member of the Nurse Midwifery Advisory Committee asked BRN staff on Oct. 12, 2025, to place a future agenda item explaining the BRN’s process for reviewing nurse‑midwifery education programs in California.
Kim Do, a new committee member, asked for a staff presentation to “better understand the BRN process for approving nurse midwifery education programs in the state.” BRN staff clarified that the board is not statutorily required to approve certified nurse‑midwife (CNM) programs. Instead, staff said, the BRN historically offered voluntary reviews upon request by programs to determine whether a curriculum met California licensing requirements. Nurse practitioner programs remain the only advanced practice programs the BRN is required by law to approve.
Laurie, a BRN staff member, told the committee that staff will meet offline with Do and other members to explain the historical voluntary review process and to help craft a properly worded agenda item if committee members want formal discussion or a regulatory proposal. “If you want to set a requirement forward, we would have to do it in regulations, and we would have to make that a scheduled process,” Laurie said.
Committee members discussed whether the topic should be handled in a subcommittee or via a staff briefing at a full meeting. Staff recommended an initial meeting among Do, chief licensing staff Macaulay Fusarin and legal counsel Reza to map options and, if appropriate, place a clear agenda item for public notice that would comply with Bagley‑Keene open‑meetings requirements.
No formal action or vote was taken on this request at the meeting; staff agreed to schedule follow‑up conversations to produce a draft agenda item.
Meeting context: the exchange was part of the committee’s agenda‑setting and subcommittee report section and occurred after public comments and initial procedural matters.
