Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Clinical Pilot topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board presses University of Bridgeport and Bridgeport Hospital on pilot preceptor ratio; DPH to follow up
Summary
Board members told University of Bridgeport and Bridgeport Hospital they must follow Connecticut regulations after DPH reported a fall 2024 pilot used a 1:4 preceptor‑to‑student ratio; university and hospital officials said the model was an ACE clinical‑instructor pilot and apologized for not seeking board review in advance.
Department of Public Health staff briefed the Board of Examiners for Nursing on Dec. 18 about a fall 2024 pilot in which senior nursing students from the University of Bridgeport were precepted at Bridgeport Hospital under a new 'Academy of Clinical Essentials' (ACE) model.
Suzanne Cammarata, a DPH nurse consultant, said the department learned Bridgeport Hospital precepted students at a ratio of one preceptor to four students over the fall semester. Connecticut regulation cited during the meeting (identified in discussion as 20‑90‑48(2)(b)) specifies a 1:2 preceptor‑to‑student ratio for clinical precepting. University and hospital representatives—including a University presenter who described the role as a hybrid between a preceptor and clinical adjunct faculty—said the ACE pilot came from a University of Maryland model, included handbooks, orientation and daily doctoral‑level oversight on site, and was intended to provide students concentrated clinical time in a single setting.
Board members, led by Mary Dieitman, said the reported 1:4 ratio conflicted with state regulations and raised patient‑safety and liability concerns. “You’re not in compliance with the regulations,” Dieitman said at the meeting, pressing the university and hospital to ensure adherence. University presenters apologized for not consulting the board earlier and said they viewed the ACE role as an innovative clinical‑instructor model; they also said two of the nurses serving in that role were enrolled in master’s programs and suggested waivers or a clinical‑adjunct classification could be considered.
Department counsel and board attorneys advised that the board can request DPH site visits and that institutions should consult DPH before piloting new clinical models. The board treated the presentation as informational and instructed university and hospital staff to ensure future clinical placements meet the 1:2 regulation or to seek formal waivers if appropriate. The chair said the expectation for the next semester is compliance with the 1:2 ratio, and the board asked DPH to follow up on next steps and any required documentation.
No enforcement action was taken at the meeting; the board asked the university and hospital to return with clarifying materials or waiver requests if they seek formal exception.
