Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Clinical Placement Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
University of Bridgeport and Bridgeport Hospital pilot draws board scrutiny over 1:4 clinical ratio
Summary
University of Bridgeport described an ACE clinical‑instructor pilot at Bridgeport Hospital that used a reported 1 preceptor/clinical instructor to 4 students in fall 2024; board members said Connecticut regulations require a 1:2 preceptor-to-student ratio and asked DPH for follow-up and possible waivers.
Connecticut’s Board of Examiners for Nursing on Dec. 18 pressed University of Bridgeport and Bridgeport Hospital representatives about a clinical‑instructor pilot the hospital hosted in fall 2024.
Suzanne Cammarata, a nurse consultant with the Department of Public Health, told the board she had spoken with hospital and university leaders and was told senior nursing students had been precepted at Bridgeport Hospital at “a ratio of 1 Bridgeport Hospital Preceptor to 4 University of Bridgeport nursing students” during the fall semester. She flagged the arrangement for review because the board’s cited regulation requires a 1:2 preceptor-to-student ratio.
Linda Wagner (University of Bridgeport) and hospital representatives described the project as an Academy of Clinical Essentials (ACE) pilot modeled on a University of Maryland program. Wagner said the role implemented on site was viewed internally as a clinical‑instructor role rather than a traditional preceptor; she said oversight included doctorally prepared faculty and on‑site clinical oversight. Wagner apologized to the board for not presenting the program in advance: “I just never thought to look at the regs because I just thought we were kind of going to see how this went for the semester.”
Board member Mary Dieitman pushed back: “But you’re not in compliance with the regulations. The regulations state that a BSN nurse can serve as a preceptor and can have up to 2 students.” Board members expressed concern about patient and student safety if an unapproved model left a single nurse supervising four students in a clinical setting.
The board treated the discussion as informational and directed the university and hospital to consult with DPH and, if appropriate, present waivers or a formal request to the board. Chair Gina Reiners encouraged the parties to follow the regulation (cited in the meeting as 20‑90‑48(2)(b)) and said DPH would follow up with the board on any required action.
Board members noted the policy tension between encouraging innovation in clinical education and enforcing statutory safety rules; several members asked that DPH report back about whether any formal sanctions or waivers are required.
