Let’s talk about a trend I’m seeing—and honestly, I can’t stay quiet about it anymore.

Across the country, more and more NP programs are telling highly experienced family nurse practitioners (FNPs) working in acute care settings that they can’t precept ACNP (Acute Care Nurse Practitioner) students. Meanwhile, those very same programs are approving Physician Assistants to precept ACNP students in those exact same roles.

I’m all for collaboration, and I respect the value PAs bring to the clinical environment. This isn’t about PAs. I love my PA colleagues! Yes, allow the PAs to precept ACNP students! But when it comes to nurse practitioner education, especially at a time when we’re facing a critical nationwide shortage of preceptors, this policy just doesn’t make sense.

Many of these FNPs have spent years, often decades, in acute care environments, first as RNs and then as APRNs. They’re functioning at the top of their license. They’ve been leading code blues, rounding in the ICU, managing critically ill patients, and mentoring residents, fellows, and yes, even NPs. Their clinical expertise in acute settings is not in question.

And yet, because of a strict interpretation of the Consensus Model for APRN Regulation, they’re being told they’re not qualified to precept ACNP students.

Meanwhile, PAs, who have a background in the generalist medical model, are being allowed to precept these same students. How does that make sense?

Yes, I know the Consensus Model, and I support it … to a point

Let’s be clear. I absolutely support the intent of the Consensus Model. It was designed to ensure that NPs practice within their scope and training. We all want safe, competent, high-quality care.

But here’s the thing: We’re interpreting it so rigidly that it’s hurting the very future of our profession.

If a Family Nurse Practitioner has spent years successfully managing acutely ill patients in an ICU or ED setting, and they’ve demonstrated competency through daily practice, should we really turn them away from precepting?

Are we protecting students, or are we gatekeeping in a way that actually harms their ability to get quality clinical education?

We’re in a preceptor crisis. Why are we turning away our own?

NP students across the country are struggling to find preceptors. Some are delaying graduation. Some are forced to accept placements that barely meet their program’s minimum standards. And many schools are outsourcing this responsibility entirely, putting the burden on students to find their own preceptors, often at high cost.

We have talented, passionate, deeply experienced NPs ready and willing to teach, and we’re telling them they’re not allowed because their certification title doesn’t match the clinical reality they’ve lived for years?

It’s not just frustrating. It’s demoralizing and embarrassing to tell these qualified FNPs their experience and qualifications are not good enough. It just feels wrong.

I’m calling on NP educators, program directors, and certifying bodies to revisit how we evaluate preceptor eligibility, especially in the context of clinical experience and actual scope of current practice.

We need to ask ourselves if we are really upholding safety and standards, or if we are creating unnecessary barriers. Are we valuing title over demonstrated clinical competency? Are we unintentionally creating a two-tiered system where a PA’s scope is considered broader than an NP’s, even in nursing education?

Let’s stop pushing away seasoned NPs who are eager to give back. Let’s stop tying the hands of clinical coordinators. Let’s stop adding more challenges to students trying to secure preceptors. Let’s trust what we already know: Nurses are adaptable, competent, and capable, especially when they’ve spent years in acute care.

It’s time for a more nuanced, practical approach. No, we shouldn’t ignore scope and certification. However, we should be willing to evaluate each preceptor based on their real-world experience, not just the letters after their name. Let’s build systems that empower, not exclude. We must have guidelines for appropriate clinical placements, but let’s also consider factors beyond the black-and-white checklist when evaluating qualifications.

At a time when we desperately need solutions, this is low-hanging fruit. We’re not asking to bend the rules recklessly. We’re asking for logic, flexibility, and respect for clinical reality.

Let’s not forget, we are the NP profession. And it’s up to us to shape our future.

Lynn McComas is CEO and founder, PreceptorLink, and a recognized expert in precepting nurse practitioners and advanced practice provider students. With over two decades in primary care, Lynn has served as a coach, advisor, mentor, and preceptor for countless health care professionals, including NPs, nurses, and medical assistants. She co-founded a successful skills and procedures business and speaks nationwide on NP-related issues.

Lynn is also a regular contributor on LinkedIn, KevinMD, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram @preceptorlink, X @LynnMcComas, and her blog, where she addresses the growing NP and PA professions and the urgent need for preceptor sites. Her unique perspective, shaped by her business, clinical, and educational experiences, positions her as a key voice in tackling preceptor shortages. Lynn is committed to driving change—through a paradigm shift in NP education, reducing barriers, offering preceptor incentives, and advocating for reforms within the profession.