Search

Purpose This article introduces the interrelated concepts of nurse practitioner (NP) continuing education (CE) funding patterns, regulatory guidance surrounding NP CE, and its effect on patient outcomes in the United States. Data sources A literature review was done by searching online databases: MEDLINE and CINAHL. Searches included review of NP certifying body websites, Institute of Medicine, Josiah Macy Foundation, and the National Council of State Boards of Nursing websites. Conclusions The nursing literature supports no connection between required CE and improvement in provision of care to patients, nor does it support improvement in individual provider competence. The funding patterns for nursing and medicine indicate a bias toward biomedical and pharmacological interventions. This type of funding stream may contribute to practice gaps rather than improve them. Implications for practice Understanding factors that influence CE program availability, plus the choices NPs make regarding mandatory CE, can provide planning guidance. This guidance can help reach the goal of improved patient outcomes and decreased healthcare disparities as a result of CE interventions. NP-specific findings may potentially influence regulatory reform relevant to mandatory CE and maintenance of certification. It is important that NPs recognize existing conflicts of interest in order to make informed program choices.