Working notes from a practicing ACNP and graduate-program faculty member. Clinical practice, NP education, and the parts of AI showing up in both.
Nursing faculty are being asked to teach AI literacy without being taught it themselves. That gap is going to show up in clinical practice.
Read the piece →Every year I watch new NPs order an echo to answer a question the exam would have answered in 30 seconds. The problem isn't technology. It's education.
The 48-hour rule is not a safety net. One in seven patients with AF of more than two days has a clot on TEE. Here's what the 2023 guidelines actually require.
We ran focus groups asking nursing students what actually helped them retain what they learned. They knew the answer. The courses just weren't designed that way.
We're asking nursing faculty to innovate in the classroom while they're rounding on patients at 6 AM. AI isn't a shortcut. It's a force multiplier for people who are already doing too much.
Slide rules, mainframes, encyclopedias, search engines. Every technology transition had holdouts who were right about the tradeoffs and wrong about the timeline. AI is not different.
We surveyed 28 nursing faculty on what produces lasting retention. They knew exactly what works. The number one barrier wasn't resistance or skepticism. It was time.
How much cardiology did your NP or PA program include? The answer is almost always: not enough. Here's what the gap looks like, why it exists, and what to do about it.
The hype cycle leaves out the part where you throw away most of what the AI produces. Getting educational content right is iterative, expertise-dependent, and worth it. But it's not push-button.
Clinical education in nursing has become a spectator sport. Students watch. They graduate and model what they saw. Each generation trains the next one in observation. It's a loop.
We spent decades moving nursing education out of hospitals and into universities. Now the hospitals are building schools again. The question is whether nursing education gets ahead of this or just watches it happen.
BSN programs cost more and deliver thinner clinical training than they did 20 years ago. Hospitals are drawing their own conclusions. Academic nursing has to decide whether it responds or just watches.
Nursing faculty know clinical education broke down. The problem isn't awareness. It's that redesigning a clinical model from scratch competes with everything else for hours nobody has.
The holdouts in every technology transition weren't wrong about the costs. They were wrong about the timeline. AI is not going to wait while faculty decide whether the tradeoffs are acceptable.
Nursing faculty aren't running out of expertise. They're running out of hours to deploy it. AI doesn't change what faculty know. It changes whether that knowledge has anywhere to go.
A meta-analysis of 51 education studies found no single learning strategy that outperforms all others. The highest retention came from deliberate layering. Most nursing faculty are still running one dominant approach and wondering why it doesn't stick.
Nick Saban built six national championships by telling his players to stop thinking about winning. Donabedian built a quality science framework in 1966 that said the same thing. Nursing education is still watching the scoreboard.
NPs wear a lot of hats. A breakdown of the tools I've built — for students preparing for boards, clinicians closing knowledge gaps, and faculty buried in content creation.
Heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction sits between the two ends of the spectrum that the trials studied and the guidelines were built for. That's not a reason to wait. It's a reason to pay closer attention.
NP and PA programs are designed to produce generalists. A growing number of graduates take their first job in a subspecialty. Nobody built a bridge between those two things.
Clinical practice guidelines update on a rolling cycle. Course content doesn't. The lag isn't negligence — it's a structural capacity problem that individual effort can't solve.
The questions worth asking in clinical education are rarely the ones a textbook answers. They’re the adjacent ones — the ones that come from noticing what you don’t know yet.
The physical exam gets the eulogies. In cardiology, the history is where the diagnosis actually lives, and it's a performance skill that can only develop through supervised repetition with real patients.
Attendings give you the answer. Nobody asks how you got there. That question is what turns observation into clinical mastery. It's also the first thing cut when the schedule is full.
Chess grandmasters don't calculate more moves than average players. They see fewer options, and the options they see are the right ones. Clinical reasoning in NP and PA education works the same way, but almost nobody is building for it.
I ran my own course materials through NursingEdAI's learning-science audit. Even as a scholar of durable learning, what I found surprised me.
I built a system to feed my AI the right background automatically, then measured whether it actually helped. The system got better. I didn't. I built a safety net for exactly that problem and never once reached for it.
Graduate NP content needs the exact current recommendation, not the version you remember from the last time you looked. Verifying you have the right guideline is the first step that gets cut when you're busy, and nobody catches it until a student does.
A year of building products with AI as a primary work tool taught me three frustrations nobody warns you about, and produced results I couldn't have gotten any other way. The deal is real on both sides.
Clinical education, AI in nursing, and the work of building something real. New articles to your inbox — no noise.
You’re in. First issue coming soon.