Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement
| This page reproduces entries from a student maintained issue tracker concerning Herzing University's MSN-DE prelicensure nursing program. Each entry carries the tracker's own status label, almost always CONFIRMED or POSSIBLE. Entries marked POSSIBLE are reported concerns pending verification, not findings. Student names have been replaced with consistent pseudonyms (Student A, Student B, and so on); the author is referred to as the reporting student. Faculty and staff are identified by name and role as they appear in the underlying records. See Herzing University Issue Tracker for method, severity definitions, and sources. |
Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern clinical placement. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See Herzing University Issue Tracker for method, severity definitions, and the full index.
Overview
This article collects 60 tracker entries concerning clinical placement, added between 2026-04-30 and 2026-08-11, though several entries document underlying events reaching back to the 2023-2024 academic year and December 2024. The severity mix skews heavy: seven entries are rated Critical (HU-093, HU-128, HU-133, HU-133a, HU-141, HU-141a, HU-141c), the majority are High, several are Medium, and two are Low (HU-181, HU-196, the latter a resolved example). Nearly all entries are CONFIRMED from first-party emails, Canvas messages, screenshots, or institutional documents; a smaller set is marked POSSIBLE where the account is secondhand or unverified, including HU-042, HU-063, parts of HU-132, HU-178, HU-190, HU-190a, and part of HU-191.
Several recurring threads run through the collection. The largest is placement never arranged, arranged late, or arranged at excessive distance, documented for individual students (HU-007, HU-128, HU-136, HU-137) and for entire cohorts (HU-071, HU-093, HU-109, HU-110). A second thread concerns clinical hour counting: mid-semester changes to required hours, credential-type mismatches, and instructor-driven reductions appear in HU-032, HU-035, HU-038, the HU-141 cluster, HU-144, and HU-191. A third thread concerns the marketing and reality of placement responsibility for graduate nurse practitioner students, where a "Clinical Placement Pledge" is contrasted with students sourcing their own preceptors (HU-058, HU-063, HU-190, HU-190a). A fourth thread documents administrative and records failures inside the placement system itself: missing student names on outreach documentation (HU-072), duplicate and erroneous Clinician Nexus entries (HU-133 cluster), and inconsistent preceptor-agreement requirements across terms (HU-170 cluster). A fifth thread traces personnel turnover and fragmented accountability across regional coordinators, including Christina Kennedy's transition (HU-121), the regional split that kept three online students from meeting together (HU-132), Dr. Rachel Powell's response naming four additional administrators (HU-134), and a misdirected welcome email from a new coordinator (HU-181).
Recurring owners include Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National Online), Christina Kennedy, Kate Powell (South Region), Starr Williams-Headen, Ann Zientara, Heather Klanderman, and program chairs Dr. Raywattie Prashad and Dr. Stacey Gombar, alongside clinical faculty Troy Frazier and Heather Gregg. The pattern is not confined to one region or program level: it spans prelicensure and graduate tracks, the National Online, South Region, and Florida/Tennessee placement structures, and recurs across at least three enrollment periods (Spring 2025, Summer 2026, and Fall 2026 planning). One entry, HU-196, documents the placement office responding promptly and effectively when given advance notice of an external risk, and is retained for contrast with the entries describing unresolved or slow-resolved failures.
Issues
HU-007: Spring 2026 clinical placement not arranged during semester; pushed to summer with late notice
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Process Gap | Date added | 2026-04-30 |
| Owner | Clinical Placement Specialist / Program Chair | ||
Finding. Spring 2026 clinical placement was not arranged during the semester and was pushed to summer with late notice.
Evidence. A student email dated 2026-04-25 states that clinicals were scheduled for the following week as a result of the university not being able to find a placement during the semester. A Clinical Placement email dated 2026-04-29 confirmed Ascension Via Christi, Wichita, Kansas for the summer.
Reported statement.
I have scheduled the exam for the earliest possible time which is 8 AM on Tuesday. Next week I have clinicals as a result of them not being able to find me a placement during the semester.
Standards. ACEN Standard 5.1 requires that clinical learning opportunities be adequate and appropriate. Handbook page 26 requires timely clinical placement. Late placement disrupts curriculum sequencing and may compromise program integrity.
Impact. Clinical hours were delayed beyond the scheduled semester, and the exam retake date conflicted with the clinical start. This may affect the graduation timeline and financial aid progression.
Notes. Christina Kennedy confirmed placement on 2026-04-29 for summer, but the official CORE notice was still pending. This is at least the second placement location; the first was four hours away (see HU-024).
HU-008: Handbook states clinical site dismissal decisions are not subject to appeal through Herzing processes
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Policy Concern | Date added | 2026-04-30 |
| Owner | Academic Affairs / Legal Counsel | ||
Finding. The Prelicensure Student Handbook states that clinical site dismissal decisions are not subject to appeal through Herzing's appeal processes.
Evidence. Handbook page 16. Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.
Reported statement.
Herzing has no control over these decisions, and such decisions of the clinical sites are not subject to appeal through the Herzing appeal processes.
Standards. Due process principles in higher education and ACEN Standard 5 are implicated. Institutions retain responsibility for ensuring students have recourse when facing adverse academic consequences; clinical dismissal leads to course failure and potential program dismissal, consequences of a magnitude that require some form of institutional review.
Impact. A student dismissed from clinical by a facility has no appeal rights at Herzing. Clinical dismissal leads to course failure and potential program dismissal with zero institutional review, a due process gap for a consequential adverse action.
Notes. This is a policy text finding from the handbook, not specific to the reporting student, but highly relevant to any student in the program.
HU-032: In-person clinical hours changed mid-semester without notice (approximately 45-50 hours told by Dr. Fabry in October 2025 versus 84 hours actually required)
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Policy Change Without Notice | Date added | 2026-05-04 |
| Owner | Program Chair / Clinical Coordinator | ||
Finding. In-person clinical hours changed mid-semester without notice, from approximately 45 to 50 hours as told by Dr. Fabry in October 2025 to 84 in-person hours actually required, causing multiple students to face semester-end hour shortfalls.
Evidence. MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe. Student CN, on January 5, 2026, said Student CN had asked Fabry about it back in October and was told 45 to 50, state dependent, and that something must have changed since then. Student Y, on December 4, 2025, said the change was bullshit and that they changed it like half way through the semester.
Reported statement. A student pseudonym known as Student CN paraphrased that Student CN had confirmed the 45 to 50 hour figure with Dr. Fabry in October and believed something had since changed. Another student pseudonym, Student Y, described the mid-semester change as unacceptable.
Standards. ACEN Standard 4 requires that program requirements be published and consistently communicated. Handbook policy requires students to complete clinical hours as assigned; a mid-semester change leaves students who planned around the original requirement unable to meet the new one without additional institutional support.
Impact. Students who planned around the original 45 to 50 hour estimate could not acquire an additional 34 to 39 hours on short notice. Multiple students ended the semester with incompletes or withdrawal grades.
Notes. Multiple students also reported confusion about whether virtual hours counted toward a combined total or were separate from in-person hours. See HU-033 for related conflicting published totals.
HU-035: Student (Student BC, Florida) received only 36 of 84 required in-person clinical hours because university failed to arrange placement; university attempted to issue W grade
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Institutional Placement Failure / Wrongful Withdrawal | Date added | 2026-05-04 |
| Owner | Clinical Placement / Program Chair / Academic Affairs | ||
Finding. A student, identified as Student BC in Florida, received only 36 of 84 required in-person clinical hours because the university failed to arrange placement for the remaining specialties, and the university attempted to issue a W grade rather than an institutional incomplete.
Evidence. MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (April 3 to 4, 2026). Student BC reported being told she would receive a W for Clinical III because the university could not arrange OB and pediatrics placements. A clinical instructor was willing to let her complete all hours in med-surg. The university initially refused an incomplete. Source Group: MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (Sept 2025 to May 2026).
Reported statement. Student BC, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that the university did not even know she was there getting her Clinical III hours, that they were going to withdraw her in a way that would push her back, and that her clinical instructor was willing to let her finish all of the hours in med-surg, but the university would not give her an incomplete.
Standards. ACEN Standard 5.1 requires clinical learning opportunities be adequate and timely. Handbook page 26 addresses clinical placement policies. A W grade for a clinical course failure caused entirely by the institution's failure to arrange placement constitutes an institutional harm. Two W grades equal one failed attempt under Handbook page 20.
Impact. Issuance of a W grade for an institutionally caused placement failure pushes the student's graduation date back, triggers additional tuition costs, and creates a permanent academic record entry for a failure that was not the student's fault.
Notes. Multiple other students also reported placement issues in the same semester. See also HU-007.
HU-038: Student (Student E) explicitly confirmed by placement coordinator that 36 hours was total in-person requirement; completed 36 hours; discovered at semester end he was 48 hours short
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Staff Misinformation / Accommodation Failure | Date added | 2026-05-04 |
| Owner | Clinical Placement / Program Chair | ||
Finding. A student, identified as Student E, was explicitly confirmed by a placement coordinator that 36 hours was his total in-person clinical requirement, completed 36 hours, and discovered at semester end he was actually 48 hours short of the required 84.
Evidence. MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe, April 15 to 16, 2026. Student E described calling and asking, mind you, whether he only needed 4 days total, since something did not make sense when the system says 84 hours are needed. He said he was told that whatever was put in his core ELMS was correct, that he asked again to be sure and was told the same thing again, and then boom, the coordinator had been wrong the whole time. The placement coordinator later tried to make everything his fault.
Reported statement. Student E, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that he had called twice to confirm the requirement, was told each time the number in his records was correct, and later learned the coordinator had been wrong the entire time; he added that the coordinator then tried to place blame on him.
Standards. Promissory estoppel and reliance doctrine hold that a student who confirms a program requirement with an institutional representative and acts in good faith reliance on that confirmation cannot be held responsible for the institutional error. ACEN Standard 4 and 34 CFR 668.14 are also implicated.
Impact. The student completed the semester 48 hours short of the clinical requirement through no fault of his own, received an incomplete, and faced delayed program completion, all based on confirmed staff misinformation.
Notes. The placement coordinator reportedly called the student and tried to make the situation his fault, a response inconsistent with the documented facts. See also HU-035 and HU-032.
HU-042: Hospital administrator reportedly informed Herzing student that hospital no longer accepts Herzing students due to prior practice of sending students to preceptorship without any prior clinical experience
| Severity | High | Status | POSSIBLE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Clinical Readiness / Accreditation Risk | Date added | 2026-05-04 |
| Owner | Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / Clinical Affairs | ||
Finding. According to the tracker, a hospital administrator reportedly informed a Herzing student that the hospital no longer accepts Herzing students because Herzing previously sent students to senior-year preceptorship without any prior clinical experience.
Evidence. MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe, September 27, 2025. Student E relayed talking with the nurse lead at Student E's hospital, who was telling Student E why the hospital does not allow Herzing students there anymore, saying there was a time when Herzing sent students to preceptorship without having a single clinical experience at all, and that those students were sent into patient rooms with no clinical experience at all.
Reported statement. Student E, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that the nurse lead at Student E's hospital said Herzing once sent students to preceptorship without any clinical experience at all, placing them in patient rooms unsupervised in what is meant to be the senior-year unsupervised phase.
Standards. ACEN Standard 5.1 requires clinical experiences be adequate, appropriate, and sequenced to build competence. State Board of Nursing regulations typically require progressive supervised clinical experience before unsupervised preceptorship. Sending students into patient care settings without prior supervised experience raises patient safety concerns and potential state nursing board violations.
Impact. If confirmed, sending students to unsupervised preceptorship without prior clinical experience would represent a patient safety failure, a nursing board violation, and grounds for accreditation concern. The loss of hospital clinical partnership sites due to prior conduct directly harms current students needing placement.
Notes. This is a secondhand account requiring verification. The loss of clinical placement sites is directly corroborated by documented difficulty placing students throughout 2025 and 2026 (see HU-007, HU-032, HU-035, HU-038).
HU-049: Clinical placement distances systematically excessive; documented cases include 2+ hour one-way drives; no reasonable distance standard appears to be applied
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Systemic Distance / Accommodation Gap | Date added | 2026-05-04 |
| Owner | Clinical Placement / Program Chair / ADA Coordinator | ||
Finding. Clinical placement distances are systematically excessive, with documented cases including a Fort Myers to St. Pete assignment (over two hours one way), an HCA Osceola assignment (a three-hour drive), and other Florida students placed two to four hours from home. No reasonable distance standard appears to be applied.
Evidence. Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe. Student B (Fort Myers, Florida) reported placement at Orlando Health Bayfront Hospital in St. Pete, over two hours one way, and knew classmates from Naples (placed in St. Pete) and Ocala (commuting to Tampa). A student named Kristin reported potentially being placed at HCA Osceola, a three-hour drive.
Reported statement. Student B, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that Student B drives two hours one way for clinicals, calling it inconvenient though manageable, and attributed the pattern to the campuses being concentrated in Tampa and Orlando, where existing agreements already exist rather than local sites for students elsewhere.
Standards. Handbook page 26 requires clinical placements be within a reasonable distance from the campus or the student's address on file. A one-way two to four hour drive does not constitute reasonable distance. ADA and Section 504 concerns arise for students with documented disabilities (see HU-024). ACEN Standard 5.1 is also implicated.
Impact. Students required to drive two to four hours each way for twelve-hour clinical shifts face extreme fatigue, increased accident risk, and significant financial costs. Students with disabilities or health conditions are disproportionately harmed.
Notes. Student B's observation that clinical partnerships are concentrated near Tampa and Orlando campuses regardless of student home location suggests the online program uses campus-based placement infrastructure without developing online-student-centered relationships. See also HU-024, HU-007, HU-035.
HU-058: The "Clinical Placement Pledge" marketed to graduate NP students appears materially misleading; multiple students confirm they are responsible for finding their own preceptors; some pay $1,000 or more
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Institutional Misrepresentation, Clinical Placement Pledge | Date added | 2026-05-05 |
| Owner | Clinical Placement / Dean of Graduate Nursing / Admissions | ||
Finding. The "Clinical Placement Pledge" marketed to prospective graduate NP students appears materially misleading. Multiple current and former Herzing FNP, PMHNP, and AGACNP students across at least five states confirm they are largely or entirely responsible for finding their own clinical preceptors, with many cold-calling over 100 sites independently. Some students pay $1,000 or more out of pocket for preceptor matching services, and sites with existing Herzing affiliation agreements have refused to accept students.
Evidence. Facebook posts, March to April 2026: (1) Student BU (April 24, 2026), to whom a Herzing alumna, Student BV, replied that a student is mostly on their own finding a preceptor. (2) Student BW (March 10, 2026), an FNP student in Nashville, who contacted over 100 possible sites in the past couple of months. (3) Student CI (February 15, 2026), an MSN-FNP student in Baltimore, who is currently in a MSN-FNP program at Herzing University where students are required to find their own clinical placements. (4) Student CJ (February 20, 2026), a PMHNP student in North Carolina, who stated that even places with existing affiliation agreements have stated they will not accept students. (5) Handle 7 (March 13, 2026), who stated they had to pay the majority of their preceptor cost. Source Group: Defense Bundles and Institutional Materials (May 2026).
Reported statement. Student BU, Student BV, Student BW, Student CI, Student CJ, and Handle 7, all student pseudonyms or anonymous handles, collectively described being largely on their own to find a preceptor, contacting well over 100 sites in a couple of months, being required to find their own clinical placements despite the pledge, having affiliated sites decline them anyway, and paying out of pocket, in one case the majority of the cost, for a preceptor.
Standards. 34 CFR 668.71 to 75 (misrepresentation) is implicated: marketing a Clinical Placement Pledge while providing no meaningful placement assistance constitutes a potential misrepresentation of a material program characteristic. ACEN Standard 5.1 requires that the curriculum include planned clinical practice experiences adequate in number and type to prepare graduates for the nursing role. CCNE Standard III-E requires the program ensure adequate preceptor availability. FTC Act Section 5 applies to deceptive advertising of educational program features.
Impact. Graduate NP students across multiple states spend dozens to hundreds of hours cold-calling clinical sites. Students are paying $1,000 or more out of pocket for commercial preceptor matching services. Sites with existing Herzing affiliation agreements are still turning students away, making the pledge functionally empty.
Notes. The Clinical Placement Pledge language appears in Herzing's NP program marketing. The contrast between the pledge and the documented reality constitutes a textbook misrepresentation under 34 CFR 668.71. This issue is distinct from HU-007, HU-035, HU-038, and HU-049, which address prelicensure clinical placement failures; this issue specifically concerns the graduate NP programs.
HU-063: Herzing NP students directed toward urgent care as acceptable clinical placement; at least one student's urgent care application rejected by Herzing because "they don't offer primary care visits"
| Severity | Medium | Status | POSSIBLE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Clinical Site Guidance Inconsistency, Urgent Care | Date added | 2026-05-05 |
| Owner | Clinical Placement / Program Chair / Graduate Nursing | ||
Finding. According to the tracker, Herzing NP students are directed toward urgent care settings as acceptable clinical placement options, but at least one student's application to an urgent care site was rejected by Herzing because the site does not offer primary care visits, creating a guidance inconsistency that wastes student placement effort and may delay program completion.
Evidence. A Facebook comment by Student CP, a mid-program Herzing FNP student, dated April 16, 2026. Source Group: Defense Bundles and Institutional Materials (May 2026).
Reported statement. Student CP, a student pseudonym, paraphrased a warning to classmates to be careful with the urgent care option, stating she had an application for urgent care declined by Herzing because urgent care does not offer primary care visits.
Standards. ACEN Standard 4 requires that program requirements be clearly and accurately communicated. 34 CFR 668.71 to 75 (Misrepresentation) is implicated: if urgent care is presented as an acceptable placement option during enrollment advising but then rejected during the clinical phase, this constitutes a material misrepresentation. CCNE Standard III requires that graduate nursing programs ensure clinical placement criteria are clearly defined and consistently applied.
Impact. NP students who spend weeks or months pursuing urgent care placement and then have their application rejected have lost significant time, effort, and opportunity cost. Given the documented preceptor scarcity and deadline pressure (see HU-058), a false lead from institutional guidance creates direct risk of delayed graduation.
Notes. This reinforces HU-058 (Clinical Placement Pledge misrepresentation). The commenter did not indicate whether the rejection was communicated before or after the student secured the urgent care agreement; if after, the harm is compounded. Urgent care is generally a primary care setting, so the distinction Herzing is apparently drawing requires clarification and consistent communication before students begin placement searches.
HU-071: Spring 2025 cohort: 75% of class without clinical placement two weeks before semester start (5/5/2025); institution responded by substituting 50 of 135 clinical hours with five 10-hour Zoom "virtual clinical" classes
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Mass Placement Failure / Virtual Substitution of In-Person Clinical Hours | Date added | 2026-05-05 |
| Owner | Clinical Placement / Program Chair / Dean of Prelicensure Nursing | ||
Finding. In April 2025, two weeks before the Spring 2025 clinical rotation semester began on May 5, 2025, 75 percent of the cohort had no clinical assignment. The institution responded by emailing students that 50 of the 135 required clinical hours for the next semester would be obtained through five 10-hour Zoom "virtual clinical" classes, a 37 percent substitution of in-person hours with synchronous virtual sessions due to the institution's failure to secure placements.
Evidence. A Facebook post by Student D, a Spring 2025 cohort student, dated April 26, 2025, listing three key issues. First, the newly implemented Sherpath LMS system, which Student D said simply does not work, with constant issues transferring grades to Canvas, grades transferring incorrectly, etc, and course grades frequently changed with no explanation, and several people in the cohort indicating they failed a class due to this issue and trying to appeal. Second, instructors provide no instruction, so students had to be ready to do it on their own. Third, the institution being unable to place everyone for clinicals: the cohort was supposed to start clinical rotations on 5/5 and 75 percent of the class did not have a clinical assignment, and it was so bad that an email went out about two weeks earlier stating that 50 of the 135 clinical hours for next semester would have to be obtained in five 10-hour virtual classes going forward. Student D added that there were so many more things like this, and that while any one of the items might seem insignificant, the continual litany of issues, misrepresentations, and chaos adds up. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Topical/Keyword Review (Volume 6).
Reported statement. Student D, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that the institution is unable to place everyone for clinicals, that the cohort was supposed to start rotations on 5/5 with 75 percent of the class lacking a clinical assignment, that an email sent about two weeks earlier said 50 of the 135 clinical hours for next semester would have to come from five 10-hour virtual classes, and asked rhetorically whether anyone could imagine sitting in a Zoom call for 10 hours.
Standards. ACEN Standard 5.1 requires that the curriculum include planned clinical practice experiences adequate in number and type to prepare graduates for the nursing role. Substituting 37 percent of in-person clinical hours with 10-hour Zoom sessions does not constitute adequate clinical practice for the development of psychomotor nursing skills. Virginia's Board of Nursing, and several other state boards of nursing, cap simulation hours at 25 percent of total clinical hours; substituting Zoom sessions for in-person clinical hours likely violates these state caps for affected students (see HU-070). Handbook page 26 (clinical placement standards) and 34 CFR 668.71 to 75 (misrepresentation) are implicated, since students who enrolled with the understanding of in-person clinical experience are receiving a materially different educational experience. NCSBN nursing simulation guidelines state that virtual simulation is not equivalent to in-person clinical experience for skill acquisition.
Impact. Seventy-five percent of a cohort lacking clinical placement two weeks before the semester represents a systemic placement infrastructure failure. The institution's solution, 10-hour Zoom "virtual clinical" sessions, is pedagogically inappropriate for nursing skill development and likely violates state board of nursing simulation caps for students in regulated states. Spring 2025 cohort graduates may face NCLEX licensure ineligibility in states with strict simulation hour caps. The educational quality of an all-day Zoom "clinical" is not equivalent to in-person clinical practice; students cannot perform vital signs, medication administration, IV insertion, or patient assessment via Zoom.
Notes. This issue compounds HU-007, HU-032, HU-035, HU-038, HU-049 (placement deficiencies) and HU-070 (Virginia BON 25 percent simulation cap). The substitution of in-person hours with Zoom sessions is a particularly significant escalation: prior placement failures resulted in W grades or delayed graduation, while this systemic substitution affects 75 percent of an entire cohort and dilutes the quality of clinical education program-wide. A cohort member identified as Student B, described as a faculty advisor, partially refuted the timing in the comments, stating that they did not get their clinical assignment at the start of the semester, that it was about two to three weeks into the semester, and that other students might still get placed somewhere, which acknowledges the late-placement pattern rather than refutes it. Multiple students in the Spring 2025 cohort indicated they failed classes due to the related Sherpath grade transfer failures (see HU-075).
HU-072: Clinical placement documentation sent to affiliated hospitals without student name, causing hospitals to not respond; institution then blamed hospitals for non-response rather than acknowledging the documentation error
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Institutional Misrepresentation about Clinical Outreach Efforts | Date added | 2026-05-05 |
| Owner | Clinical Placement / Program Chair / Compliance | ||
Finding. Multiple students reported that Herzing's clinical placement office told them affiliated hospitals did not respond to placement requests, when in fact Herzing had sent placement documentation without the student's name listed, preventing hospitals from identifying or responding to the request. When students contacted hospitals directly, hospital staff confirmed they never received an identifiable student request, because Herzing had been unable to include the student's name in what it sent. The institution shifted blame to the hospitals rather than acknowledging the documentation error.
Evidence. Facebook post by Student N, August 13, 2024: Baptist has an active affiliation with Herzing, and even that did not stop the institution from sending Student N far away; the school said Baptist did not respond, but another student described in the post as a girl said the documentation was sent with no student name at her hospital of choice, so the hospital did not respond; Student N wondered whether the same explained Student N's own case and said Student N was trying to fight it for the next semester, adding that Student N loves this site. Corroborating post by Student F, May 25, 2024: clinical placement is not reliable, and the office seems to have a standard of telling students it reached out to hospitals, when contacting the hospital directly reveals the hospital never received an email. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Topical/Keyword Review (Volume 6).
Reported statement. Student N, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that Baptist has an active affiliation with Herzing but that did not prevent a distant placement, that the school claimed Baptist did not respond, and that another student, described as a girl, learned documentation sent with no student name explained a hospital's non-response, leaving Student N wondering whether the same happened in Student N's own case and stating Student N was trying to fight it for next semester. Student F, a separate student pseudonym, paraphrased that clinical placement is not reliable and follows a pattern of claiming outreach was made to hospitals when, once a student contacts the hospital directly, the hospital says it never received an email.
Standards. 34 CFR 668.71 to 75 (misrepresentation) provides that institutions may not make substantial misrepresentations to students about the nature of services they provide. Telling a student that an affiliated hospital did not respond, when in fact the institution sent inadequate documentation, constitutes a misrepresentation about the institution's clinical outreach efforts. ACEN Standard 5.1 treats clinical placement as an institutional responsibility, and misrepresenting placement efforts harms student academic progression. The Federal Trade Commission Act Section 5 (deceptive practices) requires that institutional statements to enrolled students about placement efforts be truthful and substantiated.
Impact. Students relied on the institution's representation that hospitals did not respond and accepted distant placements as the only option. Had they known the actual cause was inadequate institutional documentation, they could have demanded the placement be re-attempted with proper documentation. The pattern wastes student time, forces unnecessary travel costs (see HU-024, HU-049), and shifts institutional responsibility for placement failures onto affiliated hospitals. Multiple students in the same cohort identifying this same pattern across different placement attempts indicates a systemic institutional documentation practice rather than an isolated error.
Notes. This issue substantially expands HU-007, HU-035, HU-038, and HU-049 by identifying a specific institutional practice, incomplete documentation, that may be the root cause of many reported placement failures. It also intersects with HU-042 (hospital reportedly refusing Herzing students). Recommended verification should include: an audit of placement requests sent to affiliated hospitals to determine whether student names were consistently included; an interview of the clinical placement coordinator about documentation practices; and hospital partner interviews about communications received from Herzing. The Student F corroboration, from a different student in a different cohort, strengthens the finding: the practice is documented across multiple cohorts.
HU-080: Mid-rotation clinical requirement changes documented across multiple semesters: mental health hours retroactively required to be with social worker or mental health nurse despite prior alternative (for example, AA meetings) being acceptable
| Severity | Medium | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Mid-Rotation Requirement Changes | Date added | 2026-05-05 |
| Owner | Clinical Coordinator / Program Chair / Mental Health Course Director | ||
Finding. Students reported that clinical requirements have been changed mid-rotation, requiring them to redo or supplement work already completed under original guidance. A documented case describes a student halfway through her mental health clinical hours being told the hours must be done with a social worker or mental health nurse, after she had already completed hours under prior guidance that AA meeting attendance also satisfied the requirement.
Evidence. Facebook comment by Student F, December 30, 2023. Student F said this was, so to say, a perfect example of a lack of communication in clinicals: while halfway done with her mental health hours, her clinical instructor said the hours had to be done with a social worker or a mental health nurse, even though sitting in an AA meeting had also met the requirement. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Topical/Keyword Review (Volume 6).
Reported statement. Student F, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that a lack of communication in clinicals was exemplified by being told halfway through her mental health hours that they had to be completed with a social worker or mental health nurse, despite AA meeting attendance previously meeting the requirement.
Standards. ACEN Standard 4 requires that program requirements be clearly and consistently communicated. Promissory reliance and good-faith reliance doctrine hold that students who completed clinical hours in good-faith reliance on stated requirements cannot fairly be required to redo those hours when requirements change mid-rotation. Handbook page 26 addresses clinical requirements. The pattern is consistent with HU-032 (mid-semester in-person hour changes) and HU-033 (conflicting published clinical hour totals).
Impact. Students who completed mental health clinical hours under the original guidance lose either the time invested or face additional clinical hour requirements they did not anticipate. Mental health clinical placements are particularly difficult to secure, per Handbook page 26, which states that for mental health a student has to find their own site, so requiring last-minute additional placement adds significant burden. This pattern continues to support the broader finding that clinical requirements change without adequate advance notice.
Notes. This is a documented historical instance from the 2023 to 2024 academic year, but the underlying pattern, mid-rotation clinical requirement changes, continues into 2025 (see HU-032, HU-033, HU-071). Recommended verification is a review of mental health clinical syllabi from multiple semesters to determine whether the requirement was formally changed or whether it represented inconsistent enforcement by individual clinical instructors.
HU-093: Mass clinical placement crisis email December 2024, institution had 5 months advance knowledge of Spring 2025 crisis; Detroit contracts lost; Student AL forced to compress 135 hours into 2.5 months
| Severity | Critical | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Institutional Advance Knowledge / Crisis Management Failure | Date added | 2026-05-05 |
| Owner | Clinical Placement Team / Dean of Nursing / Amanda Howell / Karl Bayly | ||
Finding. In December 2024, Herzing sent an email to students in clinical-track semesters disclosing significant clinical placement difficulties, including loss of Detroit-area contracts and inadequate placement availability for Spring 2025. This email documents that the institution had at least five months of advance knowledge of the placement crisis that became HU-071 (Spring 2025, 75 percent without placement two weeks before semester start). Karl Bayly and Amanda Howell were identified in the thread as the primary contacts for placement. Student AL documented being required to compress all 135 clinical hours into approximately 2.5 months because placement was not secured in advance, a workload intensity that is clinically and professionally unreasonable. The Detroit contract losses were attributed in part to poor student behavior at those sites, adding a reputational harm dimension. Students confirmed through the Facebook thread that institutional communication about the crisis was minimal and that the December email was the primary formal disclosure.
Evidence. Facebook discussion thread referencing the mass clinical placement crisis email of December 2024. A Karl Bayly email is referenced by multiple students as the primary placement contact. Student AL is documented in the thread as having been forced to compress 135 hours into approximately 2.5 months due to delayed placement. The loss of Detroit clinical contracts is attributed to poor student behavior at affiliated sites. Amanda Howell is identified as the secondary clinical placement contact. The thread cross-references HU-071 (Spring 2025, 75 percent without clinical placement two weeks before semester start): the December 2024 email demonstrates institutional advance knowledge of the crisis that HU-071 documents. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).
Reported statement. The December 2024 institutional email disclosed placement difficulties and the loss of Detroit-area contracts, identified Karl Bayly and Amanda Howell as contacts, and cited poor student behavior as the cause of the contract losses.
Standards. ACEN Standard 5 requires that institutions ensure adequate clinical placement availability before students begin clinical semesters. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to maintain the administrative capacity to fulfill their educational obligations. Having advance knowledge of five or more months of a clinical placement crisis and failing to resolve it before the semester start, while only minimally communicating with affected students, constitutes an administrative capability failure. If Detroit contracts were lost due to poor student behavior, the institution bears responsibility for not providing adequate clinical supervision that would have prevented the conduct issues (see HU-081 preceptor communication failures).
Impact. Students forced to compress 135 clinical hours into 2.5 months face unreasonable physical and professional demands. Clinical learning quality is degraded by compressed timelines. Students who could not accommodate a compressed schedule faced graduation delays. The contract losses create a shrinking placement network for future cohorts, compounding an already documented shortage. The attribution of contract losses to poor student behavior, without institutional self-examination of whether inadequate preceptor orientation contributed (see HU-081), represents a blame-shift to students.
Notes. This issue directly bridges HU-071 (Spring 2025 placement crisis) and HU-072 (documentation sent without student names). The December 2024 email establishes that HU-071's crisis was foreseeable and known, making the institution's failure to resolve it before the semester start a deliberate or negligent institutional choice rather than an unexpected event. Cross-reference: HU-007 (Spring 2026 placement not arranged during semester), HU-024 (excessive placement distances), HU-049 (systemic placement distance failures).
HU-109: Clinical affiliation agreement requests from students routinely denied; Student H tried many times with no success; one successful case took months; students cannot expand clinical network to address placement shortages
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Affiliation Agreement Non-Responsiveness | Date added | 2026-05-05 |
| Owner | Clinical Coordinator / Compliance / Dean of Nursing | ||
Finding. Student H, on October 3, 2024, documented that student requests for Herzing to establish new clinical affiliation agreements with additional sites are routinely denied. He said he tried many times with no success, and that the only person he knows of who succeeded was one girl, whom Herzing took months to make legit with a new site. This means students facing clinical placement shortages (HU-071, HU-093) cannot resolve their own placement crisis by identifying willing clinical sites, because the institution will not execute the necessary affiliation agreement. Students who find their own willing preceptors, as documented in Student D's Clinical II experience, face an institutional bottleneck that prevents them from obtaining placement even when they have done the work of finding it.
Evidence. Student H, October 3, 2024, paraphrased description: a student can try to request that Herzing obtain an affiliation agreement, but Student H tried many times with no success, and knew of one girl who did get Herzing to sign on with a new site, though that process took months. Student D, May 28, 2025, paraphrased description: Student D found their own site and Herzing got a contract in place, but finding the site was easy while getting Herzing to make it legit was a bit more challenging. The contrast between Student H's repeated failures and Student D's eventual success, achieved only with significant difficulty, documents inconsistent institutional responsiveness to affiliation agreement requests. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).
Reported statement. Student H, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that requesting an affiliation agreement rarely succeeds despite repeated attempts, and that the one classmate who succeeded waited months. Student D, a separate student pseudonym, paraphrased that finding the site independently was easy but getting Herzing to make it official was more challenging.
Standards. ACEN Standard 5 requires that institutions ensure sufficient clinical placement infrastructure to support student learning. If the institution is simultaneously experiencing clinical placement shortages (HU-071: 75 percent without placement two weeks before semester start) and routinely denying student-initiated affiliation agreement requests, the institution is both failing to provide placements and blocking students from self-resolving the deficit. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to maintain the administrative capacity to process clinical affiliation agreements in a timely manner. A process that takes months and succeeds only rarely is not functioning adequately given the documented urgency of placement shortages.
Impact. Students facing clinical placement shortages have no effective self-help mechanism: they cannot find and formalize their own placements without institutional cooperation, and that cooperation is routinely withheld. Students who identified willing preceptors and sites were blocked from using them, while simultaneously being told their placement delay was due to limited available sites. The combination of institutional placement failure (HU-071) and institutional refusal to process student-sourced affiliations compounds the harm and extends placement delays.
Notes. This issue directly compounds HU-071 (Spring 2025 placement crisis), HU-072 (documentation errors in placement), HU-093 (mass placement crisis December 2024 email), and HU-024 (excessive placement distances). Students who could resolve their own placement crisis are blocked by institutional inaction on affiliation agreements. Cross-reference: HU-007 (Spring 2026 placement not arranged), HU-084 (library volunteering for OB/Peds hours, students accepting inadequate placements because proper affiliations were not available).
HU-110: Alabama clinical network: single preceptor for entire state as of December 2024; that preceptor considering leaving; single point of failure threatening all Alabama students' clinical placement simultaneously
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Single Point of Failure / Preceptor Network Inadequacy | Date added | 2026-05-05 |
| Owner | Clinical Coordinator / State Relations | ||
Finding. Student AF, on December 30, 2024, documented that as of December 2024, the entire state of Alabama had only one clinical preceptor available for Herzing MSN-DE students, and that the preceptor had stated she might not continue on. This creates a catastrophic single point of failure: if that one preceptor leaves, all Alabama students requiring clinical placement simultaneously lose access to any placement in their state. This finding predates and helps explain the Alabama BON enforcement action documented in HU-085 (April 2026), where Alabama students were unable to sit for NCLEX due to insufficient in-person clinical hours. If the state had only one preceptor, students who could not access that preceptor may have been forced into virtual-only hours, exactly the situation the Alabama BON later enforced against.
Evidence. Student AF, December 30, 2024, stated the single-preceptor situation in the context of students discussing clinical placement availability in Alabama. The statement was not challenged or corrected by other Alabama students in the thread, suggesting it was accepted as accurate. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).
Reported statement. Student AF, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that there was only one preceptor in Alabama and that she had indicated she might not continue on.
Standards. ACEN Standard 5 requires institutions to maintain sufficient clinical infrastructure to support student learning without creating single points of failure. A state with a significant student population relying on a single preceptor who is considering leaving constitutes an administrative capability failure under 34 CFR 668.14. NCSBN guidelines require that adequate clinical supervision include sufficient preceptor availability across all student locations; a single preceptor serving an entire state cannot provide adequate supervision for the volume of students enrolled. Business continuity principles hold that if the institution knew the sole Alabama preceptor was considering leaving and took no action to identify backup preceptors, this constitutes negligent management of clinical infrastructure.
Impact. If the single Alabama preceptor left, all Alabama students requiring clinical placement, potentially dozens across multiple semesters, would face simultaneous placement loss with no state-based alternative. Students who could not obtain placement would face graduation delays, loan accrual without progress toward degree completion, and potential program dismissal if clinical hours could not be completed. The December 2024 timing, the same month as the mass placement crisis email (HU-093), suggests Alabama's precarious preceptor situation was part of the broader institutional clinical capacity crisis.
Notes. This finding connects the December 2024 mass placement crisis email (HU-093), the Alabama BON enforcement action (HU-085), and the Student AH 90-plus day ATT delay (HU-094): a state with one preceptor leads to students being pushed to virtual hours, which leads to BON enforcement of insufficient in-person hours, which leads to NCLEX ineligibility and a 90-plus day ATT delay. The chain of events was predictable from the December 2024 single-preceptor disclosure. Cross-reference: HU-085, HU-093, HU-094, HU-109.
HU-121: Lead: Christina Kennedy's May 7, 2026 email disclosed two distinct problems (no onsite clinical faculty finalized at Week 1, and the placement specialist transitioning out); see HU-121a, HU-121b
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Lead / index for a split cluster (two disclosures) | Date added | 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Christina Kennedy (transitioning) / Faculty Clinical Coordinator / Jeff Ramsey / Rachel Powell / nationalprelclinical@herzing.edu | ||
Finding. This is a lead entry for two distinct problems disclosed in Christina Kennedy's May 7, 2026 4:16 PM email to the reporting student: HU-121a (no onsite Clinical Faculty Member finalized at the start of Week 1) and HU-121b (the Clinical Placement Specialist transitioning out of her role, with future questions routed to a generic inbox). Both are tracked separately. The email was copied to Jeff Ramsey, Rachel Powell, and nationalprelclinical@herzing.edu.
Notes. Split from the original combined HU-121 entry on 2026-06-06; existing references to HU-121 resolve to this lead. Summer break was confirmed as June 27 to July 5, 2026, with no clinicals. Parts: HU-121a, HU-121b. Cross-references: HU-071, HU-093, HU-103, HU-117, HU-128, HU-161.
HU-121a: No onsite Clinical Faculty Member finalized at the start of Week 1 for the reporting student; supervisory gap
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Clinical Faculty Not Assigned at Semester Start / Supervisory Gap | Date added | 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Faculty Clinical Coordinator / Rachel Powell / nationalprelclinical@herzing.edu | ||
Finding. As of Week 1 (May 7, 2026), clinical placement was secured for the reporting student, but no onsite Clinical Faculty Member had been finalized; the Faculty Clinical Coordinator was still working on it with no confirmed dates, times, or assignment.
Evidence. Christina Kennedy's email, May 7, 2026, 4:16 PM, stating the team was working to secure an onsite Clinical Faculty Member but had not finalized it.
Reported statement.
We are currently working to secure a Clinical Faculty Member to be onsite with you, but that has not been finalized yet.
Standards. ACEN Standard 5 requires qualified clinical faculty supervision confirmed before rotations begin, and 34 CFR 668.14 requires administrative capability. Beginning clinical without a confirmed onsite supervisor is a supervisory gap affecting patient safety and competency evaluation. Lead: HU-121. Compare HU-117 (Pfaff resignation), HU-128 (no placement Week 3), HU-138, HU-161 (faculty continuity).
Impact. The student had no identified person to contact for clinical guidance, safety concerns, or grade disputes at rotation start.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-121 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.
HU-121b: Clinical Placement Specialist (Christina Kennedy) transitioning out mid-process; future questions routed to a generic inbox
| Severity | Medium | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Clinical Placement Staff Transition / Loss of Named Point of Contact | Date added | 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Christina Kennedy (transitioning) / Jeff Ramsey / nationalprelclinical@herzing.edu | ||
Finding. In the same email, the Clinical Placement Specialist Christina Kennedy disclosed she was transitioning out of her role and directed future questions to a generic inbox, nationalprelclinical@herzing.edu, removing a named point of contact during an active placement process. This compounds other Week 1 personnel departures, including Celia Pfaff's classroom resignation (HU-117).
Evidence. Christina Kennedy's email, May 7, 2026.
Reported statement.
I do want to let you know that I am transitioning out of this role. If you have additional questions in the coming weeks, you can reach nationalprelclinical@herzing.edu for assistance.
Standards. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability and continuity) and ACEN Standard 5 are implicated. Loss of a named placement contact mid-process, alongside other Week 1 departures, reflects administrative instability. Lead: HU-121. Compare HU-103 (faculty turnover), HU-117 (Pfaff resignation), HU-161 (faculty continuity).
Impact. Future placement questions are routed to a generic inbox rather than an identified individual during an unresolved clinical setup.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-121 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.
HU-123: Initial Preceptor Meeting assignment due Week 1 but no clinical site has been assigned; students cannot complete a meeting with a preceptor they have not been given; institutional deadline imposed before institutional obligation fulfilled
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Assignment Due Before Clinical Site Assigned / Institutional Sequencing Failure | Date added | 2026-05-07 |
| Owner | Dr. Stacey Gombar / Dr. Heather Gregg / Clinical Placement Team / Christina Kennedy (transitioning) | ||
Finding. The Unit 1 Initial Preceptor Meeting assignment, a required graded assignment worth 0 pts but mandatory for clinical progression, was shown as due in Week 1 (May 10, 2026), but the reporting student had not yet been assigned a clinical site or preceptor. Christina Kennedy's email (HU-121) confirmed that as of May 7, 2026, no Clinical Faculty Member had been finalized. A student cannot complete an Initial Preceptor Meeting if the institution has not yet assigned a preceptor or clinical site. The institution is imposing a Week 1 deadline for an activity that depends entirely on the institution completing its own prior obligation of assigning the clinical site and preceptor.
Evidence. Email from the reporting student to Dr. Gombar and Dr. Gregg (May 2026), stating that the initial preceptor meeting is showing due this week but he had not yet been assigned a clinical site. NSG621 Canvas assignment screenshot (HU-116 evidence) showing "Unit 1: Initial Preceptor Meeting Agreement," due May 10, 0 pts. Christina Kennedy's May 7, 2026 email to the reporting student (HU-121), confirming the team was currently working to secure a Clinical Faculty Member to be onsite with him and that it had not yet been finalized. Source Group: Email, the reporting student to Dr. Gombar / Dr. Gregg, May 2026.
Reported statement.
The initial preceptor meeting is showing due this week, but I have not yet been assigned a clinical site.
Standards. ACEN Standard 5 requires that clinical supervision be arranged by the institution before clinical activities begin. Imposing a Week 1 deadline for a preceptor meeting when the institution has not yet assigned a preceptor inverts the proper sequence: the institution must fulfill its obligation first, by assigning the preceptor and site, before the student can fulfill theirs, by completing the initial meeting. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to coordinate clinical and academic schedules so that academic requirements can actually be fulfilled. The Unit 1 Initial Preceptor Meeting Agreement being due May 10 while the preceptor was not yet assigned as of May 7 gave the student only a three-day window to complete an assignment that depends on an institutional action that had not yet occurred.
Impact. If the Initial Preceptor Meeting Agreement was not submitted by May 10, the reporting student faced a missed assignment, even though the failure to complete it is directly attributable to the institution's failure to assign a preceptor. This is a structural harm: the student is penalized for institutional non-performance. The assignment is listed as worth 0 points but required, meaning it may be a prerequisite for clinical progression; failure to submit it on time may affect clinical standing regardless of points. This connects directly to HU-121 (Kennedy email confirming no Clinical Faculty Member assigned) and HU-117 (Celia Pfaff resigned without replacement).
Notes. This issue illustrates the compounding effect of the Week 1 institutional failures: the professor resigned (HU-117), the clinical placement specialist was transitioning out (HU-121), clinical faculty had not yet been assigned (HU-121), and now a graded clinical prerequisite assignment was due before the institution had arranged the clinical relationship it requires. Dr. Gombar's email did not address this concern specifically; she acknowledged the duplicate assignments and the empty content assignments but made no mention of the preceptor meeting sequencing issue. Cross-reference: HU-121 (clinical faculty not assigned, Kennedy transitioning), HU-117 (Celia Pfaff resignation), HU-071 (Spring 2025 placement crisis), HU-109 (affiliation agreement requests denied).
HU-128: Week 3 of semester: the reporting student has no clinical placement for 96 required hours; Rachel Powell confirms team still onboarding clinical faculty with no timeframe; cannot approve virtual options; Dr. Prashad states she cannot provide accommodations for one student not provided to all; 27 virtual hours already in course for all students confirmed
| Severity | Critical | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Week 3 No Clinical Placement / Accommodation Denied for One-Student Basis | Date added | 2026-05-17 |
| Owner | Rachel Powell (Clinical Coordinator) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Dr. Danielle Laban / Emilie Thompson | ||
Finding. Going into Week 3 of the May 2026 semester, the reporting student has no clinical placement secured for the 96 required clinical hours of the term. The escalation chain is fully documented. Christina Kennedy, transitioning out of her role (HU-121), referred the reporting student to nationalprelclinical@herzing.edu. Rachel Powell responded that the team is still onboarding the clinical faculty for this clinical rotation, that unfortunately this does take time because the team is at the mercy of the clinical site and the faculty's schedule, and that unfortunately she does not have an exact timeframe and is not able to approve virtual options, which would need to come from the program chair. The reporting student then escalated to Dr. Prashad, who responded that she needs some additional information since she cannot provide for one student what is not provided to all other students, asked whether she was understanding correctly that the reporting student was reaching out because he had approved accommodations based on conditions reviewed by accommodations to do what is allowable by his state, asked that this be forwarded to her as the first step, stated that since the course already has 27 virtual hours for all students she would need to connect with several stakeholders about state requirements, and asked whether Rachel Powell is his clinical coordinator. The reporting student then escalated to disability services, Danielle Laban and Emilie Thompson. Dr. Prashad's statement that she cannot provide for one student what is not provided to all other students is legally significant: disability accommodations under the ADA and Section 504 are precisely designed to provide individualized modifications that may not be provided to all other students. Treating an accommodation request as a general equity problem fundamentally misunderstands disability law.
Evidence. Weekly Report, week ending May 17, 2026. Rachel Powell email: our team is still onboarding the clinical faculty for this clinical rotation, unfortunately this does take time, as we are at the mercy of the clinical site and the faculty's schedule. Rachel Powell: unfortunately, I do not have an exact timeframe, I am not able to approve virtual options, that would need to come from the program chair. Dr. Prashad email: I cannot provide for one student what is not provided to all other students, am I understanding correctly that you are reaching out because you have approved accommodations based on conditions reviewed by accommodations to do what is allowable by your state, since we already have 27 virtual hours for this course for all students I will need to connect with several stakeholders about state requirements, Rachel Powell, are you his clinical coordinator? Source Group: Weekly Report week ending May 17, 2026; Email chain: the reporting student to Rachel Powell, Dr. Prashad, Danielle Laban, Emilie Thompson, May 2026.
Reported statement.
Our team is still onboarding the clinical faculty for this clinical rotation. Unfortunately, this does take time, as we are at the mercy of the clinical site and the faculty's schedule. [Rachel Powell:] I do not have an exact timeframe. I am not able to approve virtual options. [Dr. Prashad:] I cannot provide for one student what is not provided to all other students. Since we already have 27 virtual hours for this course for all students, I will need to connect with several stakeholders about state requirements.
Standards. The Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12132) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794): disability accommodations are by definition individualized modifications that may differ from what is provided to other students. Dr. Prashad's statement that she cannot provide something for one student not provided to all others directly contradicts the legal framework of disability accommodations. ACEN Standard 5 requires that clinical placements be secured before students are required to fulfill clinical hours. Week 3 without a placement means the reporting student cannot complete clinical hours that are accumulating as missed. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to coordinate clinical and academic schedules so requirements can be fulfilled. Rachel Powell's confirmation that the team is at the mercy of the clinical site and the faculty's schedule, with no exact timeframe, documents institutional incapacity to fulfill its clinical placement obligation. The 27 virtual hours statement by Dr. Prashad is also significant: it confirms virtual hours exist in the course structure, which intersects with the Alabama BON enforcement action (HU-085) regarding virtual hour limits.
Impact. Week 3 with no clinical placement means the reporting student is accruing missed clinical hours with no timeline for resolution. The total requirement is 96 hours for the term; with no placement in Weeks 1 through 3, he faces a compressed or impossible catch-up schedule. Dr. Prashad's framing of his accommodation as something requiring connecting with several stakeholders about state requirements suggests a lengthy bureaucratic process rather than timely accommodation. Rachel Powell's inability to approve virtual options, requiring program chair authorization, adds another approval layer that further delays resolution. The escalation to Laban and Thompson, disability services, documents that standard faculty and clinical coordinator channels have been exhausted without resolution.
Notes. Rachel Powell is confirmed as the reporting student's clinical coordinator, based on Dr. Prashad's question, "Rachel Powell, are you his clinical coordinator?" and the email context. The 27 virtual hours figure from Dr. Prashad is important cross-reference data: if all students in NSG621 already have 27 virtual hours, and Alabama's BON is enforcing limits on virtual hours (HU-085), this raises a question of whether the virtual hour component of NSG621 has been disclosed to all relevant state boards of nursing. Cross-reference: HU-121 (Kennedy transitioning, clinical faculty not assigned), HU-123 (preceptor meeting due without clinical site), HU-125 (accommodation blocked pending Prashad), HU-085 (Alabama BON virtual hour enforcement), HU-071 (Spring 2025 placement crisis).
HU-132: Lead: three online MSN-DE students with parallel clinical-placement problems were split across regions so they could not meet collectively with the Director of Clinical Placement; the situation produced documented student distress, and the reporter referenced advisor disrespect and prior clinical-site harassment; see HU-132a through HU-132d
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED (regional fragmentation, student distress); POSSIBLE (advisor misconduct, prior harassment), the latter attributed to the reporter pending verification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Lead / index for a split cluster (regional fragmentation; student distress; reported advisor misconduct; referenced prior harassment) | Date added | 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Dr. Rachel Powell DNP RN (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National Online) / Program Leadership | ||
Finding. This is a lead entry for an email chain dated May 26 to 27, 2026 documenting several concurrent issues, tracked separately as HU-132a (Dr. Powell declined to include Student A and Student AA in a group meeting because they are not in her region, fragmenting three online students with the same problem into parallel conversations with different administrators), HU-132b (the reporter documented that affected students are crying, having panic attacks, and struggling to stay in school, establishing mental-health harm), HU-132c (a reported instance of an advisor being disrespectful to one of the other students by phone), and HU-132d (a referenced prior-term harassment of the reporter by the Director of Nursing at his clinical hospital). The reporter also stated that students lose points or fail for late work while the university does not reciprocate with timely placement. A meeting with Dr. Powell was scheduled for May 28, 2026. See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.
Notes. Student A and Student AA are identified students with parallel clinical-placement issues. The advisor disrespect (HU-132c) and prior clinical-site harassment (HU-132d) are the reporter's accounts, documented as POSSIBLE pending verification. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06; existing references to HU-132 resolve here. Source Group: Email chain: the reporting student to Dr. Rachel Powell / Student A / Student AA, May 26 to 27, 2026 (Re: Meeting). Parts: HU-132a, HU-132b, HU-132c, HU-132d. Cross-references: HU-071, HU-093, HU-109, HU-121, HU-125, HU-128, HU-133 (Student A placement error), HU-134 (Powell's response).
HU-132a: Three online MSN-DE students with parallel clinical-placement problems were split across regions, so they could not meet collectively with the Director of Clinical Placement
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Regional Fragmentation of Online Students | Date added | 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Dr. Rachel Powell DNP RN (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National Online) | ||
Finding. The reporting student attempted to arrange a group meeting with Dr. Rachel Powell to address parallel clinical-placement concerns affecting himself, Student A, and Student AA, all enrolled in the same online MSN-DE program. Dr. Powell declined to include Student A and Student AA, stating they do not reside in a state within the National (Online) region and must meet with their respective directors. The reporting student responded that it makes little sense for online students not to be in the National (Online) region and that the split breaks continuity, forcing three students with the same institutional problem into parallel conversations with different administrators.
Evidence. Dr. Powell, May 27, 2026, 10:04 AM, stated she would meet with the reporting student since he resides in a state within her region, but that neither Student A nor Student AA resides in a state within the National (Online) region, so they must meet with their respective directors. The reporting student's reply, May 27, 2026, 10:10 AM, stated it does not make sense for them not to be in the National (Online) region since they are both online students, and that the split breaks down continuity. Source Group: Email chain, May 26 to 27, 2026.
Reported statement.
I will meet with you, the reporting student, as you reside in a state within my region. However, neither Student A nor Student AA resides in a state within the National (online) region.
Standards. ACEN Standard 5 requires consistent clinical infrastructure and support for all students in a program regardless of location. HLC Criterion 2.C requires clear, consistent processes for student concerns. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) is also implicated. Fragmenting an online program's students across regions for clinical oversight means the same complaint is processed through multiple parallel channels rather than at the program level. Lead: HU-132.
Impact. Student A and Student AA, experiencing the same problems as the reporting student, could not participate in the same conversation with the same administrator, producing several parallel conversations instead of one institutional response to a systemic problem.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-132 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.
HU-132b: The reporter documented that the affected students are crying, having panic attacks, and struggling to stay in school as a result of the clinical-placement situation
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Documented Student Distress / Mental-Health Harm | Date added | 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Dr. Rachel Powell / Program Leadership | ||
Finding. The reporting student documented that the affected students are crying, having panic attacks, and struggling to stay in school as a result of the institutional response to the clinical-placement issues.
Evidence. Statement by the reporting student, May 27, 2026: the students are crying, having panic attacks, and struggling to stay in school as a result. Source Group: Email chain, May 26 to 27, 2026.
Reported statement.
we are crying, having panic attacks, and struggling to stay in school.
Standards. Section 504 and the ADA are implicated where students with documented disabilities experience panic attacks as a result of institutional failures in clinical placement and accommodation implementation: the emotional harm compounds the accommodation-compliance concerns already documented in HU-125. Lead: HU-132.
Impact. The documented distress establishes concrete mental-health harm attributable to the cumulative institutional failures across HU-071, HU-093, HU-121, HU-123, HU-125, HU-128, and HU-129, beyond mere administrative inconvenience.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-132 (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Documented as the reporter's account of the students' distress.
HU-132c: The reporter reported that an advisor was disrespectful to one of the other students by phone on the morning of May 26
| Severity | Medium | Status | POSSIBLE, attributed to the reporter, pending verification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Reported Advisor Misconduct (POSSIBLE) | Date added | 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Program Leadership / Student Affairs | ||
Finding. The reporting student reported that an advisor was disrespectful to one of the other students, either Student A or Student AA, on the phone on the morning of May 26. The advisor is unnamed and the specific conduct is not detailed; the item is preserved as the reporter's account pending verification.
Evidence. Statement by the reporting student, May 26, 2026, 12:39 PM: one of the advisors was disrespectful to her that morning on the phone. Source Group: Email chain, May 26, 2026.
Reported statement.
One of the advisors was disrespectful to her this morning on the phone.
Standards. Herzing's Student Code of Conduct and professional-conduct expectations for staff apply. The characterization is the reporter's; documented as POSSIBLE pending identification of the advisor and the specific conduct. Lead: HU-132.
Impact. If substantiated, disrespectful conduct by an advisor toward a student in distress would compound the documented harm; the item requires verification before any conclusion.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-132 (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Allegation by the reporting party; not an adjudicated finding.
HU-132d: The reporter referenced a prior-term harassment of him by the Director of Nursing at his clinical hospital
| Severity | Medium | Status | POSSIBLE, attributed to the reporter, pending verification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Referenced Prior Clinical-Site Harassment (POSSIBLE) | Date added | 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Clinical Coordination / Student Affairs | ||
Finding. The reporting student referenced that in a prior term the Director of Nursing at his clinical hospital was harassing him, framing it to Dr. Powell as something she already knew about, suggesting it was previously reported. The item is preserved as the reporter's account pending verification.
Evidence. Statement by the reporting student, May 26, 2026, 12:39 PM: as Dr. Powell knows, last term the Director of Nursing at the hospital was harassing him, and this needs to stop. Source Group: Email chain, May 26, 2026.
Reported statement.
as you know last term the Director of Nursing at the hospital was harassing me. This needs to stop.
Standards. Title IX and the Herzing Annual Security Report harassment prohibitions apply, along with clinical-site conduct expectations. The characterization is the reporter's; documented as POSSIBLE pending verification and identification of the prior report. Lead: HU-132.
Impact. If substantiated, prior harassment by a clinical-site supervisor is a serious safety concern bearing on clinical placement decisions.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-132 (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Allegation by the reporting party referencing a prior term; not an adjudicated finding.
HU-133: Lead: Student A was left in an incorrect clinical rotation group days before her clinical start, with duplicate Clinician Nexus entries, documented priority-placement accommodations violated, and a coordinator removal entry with an inaccurate reason applied to the wrong course; see HU-133a through HU-133d
| Severity | Critical | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Lead / index for a split cluster (incorrect rotation; duplicate records; accommodation violation; erroneous removal entry) | Date added | 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National Online) / Clinical Coordinator / Starr Williams-Headen (Clinician Nexus) | ||
Finding. This is a lead entry for Student A's clinical-rotation assignment problems documented May 25 to 26, 2026, tracked separately as HU-133a (remained incorrectly assigned to Group K despite a confirmed Group H assignment, uncorrected since May 12, with clinical beginning May 28 and no facility, supervisor, location, or onboarding information), HU-133b (Clinician Nexus showed three simultaneous NSG 525 entries, including a duplicate Group K with no supervisor, while IT confirmed the fix takes under a minute), HU-133c (documented medical accommodations for priority clinical placement, structured communication, and advance notice violated by the uncorrected error, tracked under ADA and Disability Accommodations), and HU-133d (a coordinator, Starr Williams-Headen, entered a removal with the reason that the student no longer needs placement due to a summer schedule change, applied to NSG 223 rather than NSG 525, risking an eliminated rather than corrected placement). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.
Notes. Group H (correct): Professor Joanna Hogan, Monarch Maplewood Care Center, Fridays 6 a.m. to 3 p.m. Group K (incorrect): Vicki K, Mercy Hospital (Allina), Wednesdays 2 p.m. to 11 p.m. The accommodation letter (Allina Health) documents anxiety and mood concerns; the health information is referenced only as relevant to the documented accommodation violations. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06; existing references to HU-133 resolve here. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Email chain: Student A, Urgent: Clinical Rotation Assignment Still Incorrect (May 25 to 26, 2026); Clinician Nexus screenshots; medical accommodation letter (Allina Health); provided by the reporting student. Parts: HU-133a, HU-133b, HU-133c, HU-133d. Cross-references: HU-132 (Student A identified, parallel issues), HU-125 (the reporting student accommodation blocked), HU-128 (Week 3 no placement), HU-071, HU-093, HU-109, HU-121.
HU-133a: Student A remained incorrectly assigned to Group K despite a confirmed Group H assignment, uncorrected since May 12, with her clinical beginning May 28 and no facility, supervisor, location, or onboarding information
| Severity | Critical | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Incorrect Rotation Assignment / Imminent Start Without Details | Date added | 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Clinical Coordinator / Dr. Rachel Powell | ||
Finding. Student A was informed she should be in Group H but remained incorrectly assigned to Group K, uncorrected despite communication since May 12, 2026. Her clinical began May 28, 2026, yet she lacked facility assignment details, site supervisor and contact information, meeting location and time, and onboarding and rotation information.
Evidence. Student A's email, "Urgent: Clinical Rotation Assignment Still Incorrect," May 25, 2026, 6:21 AM. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Student A email, May 25 to 26, 2026.
Reported statement. Student A, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that her clinical began on 5/28/26, and despite communicating since 5/12, she had not been added to the correct group rotation, remaining incorrectly in Group K when she should be in Group H; she requested confirmation by May 26 at noon.
Standards. ACEN Standard 5 requires clinical placements be accurately assigned and confirmed before students begin rotations. 34 CFR 668.14 requires accurate clinical-placement records. Lead: HU-133.
Impact. Student A began clinical with no confirmed facility, supervisor, location, or onboarding information, and risked presenting at the wrong site or being absent from her correct Group H records.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-133 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.
HU-133b: The Clinician Nexus rotation schedule showed three simultaneous NSG 525 entries, including a duplicate Group K with no supervisor, while IT confirmed the correction takes under a minute
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Duplicate Placement Records / Administrative (Not Technical) Barrier | Date added | 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Clinical Coordinator / Starr Williams-Headen (Clinician Nexus) | ||
Finding. The Clinician Nexus rotation schedule showed three NSG 525 Clinical II entries simultaneously: Group H at Monarch Maplewood (correct), Group K at Mercy Hospital/Allina (incorrect), and a duplicate Group K entry at Mercy/Allina with no supervisor listed. Clinician Nexus IT confirmed that updating the rotation assignment takes under a minute and that coordinators are responsible, establishing the barrier as administrative rather than technical.
Evidence. Clinician Nexus rotation-schedule screenshot; Student A's email, May 25, 2026, relaying the IT confirmation from a contact named Peter. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Clinician Nexus screenshots; Student A email, May 25, 2026.
Reported statement. Student A, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that IT confirmed the fix takes under a minute once the coordinator makes the change.
Standards. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability and accurate records) and ACEN Standard 5 are implicated. The IT confirmation establishes that the barrier is administrative rather than technical. Lead: HU-133.
Impact. Duplicate and conflicting records create ambiguity about Student A's actual placement and risk her presenting at the wrong site; a sub-minute fix left undone reflects an administrative failure.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-133 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.
HU-133d: A coordinator entered a removal with an inaccurate reason applied to the wrong course (NSG 223 rather than NSG 525), risking an eliminated rather than corrected placement
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Erroneous Removal Entry / Inaccurate Reason / Wrong Course | Date added | 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Starr Williams-Headen (Clinician Nexus coordinator) / Clinical Coordinator | ||
Finding. Clinician Nexus records show that Starr Williams-Headen proposed and accepted a change removing Student A from the NSG 223 Group K rotation with a note that the student no longer needs placement due to a summer schedule change. This appears erroneous: it was applied to NSG 223 (Clinical I) rather than NSG 525, and the stated reason does not describe Student A's situation, raising the risk that a placement was eliminated without substituting the correct one.
Evidence. Clinician Nexus notification screenshot documenting the proposed and accepted change. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Clinician Nexus notification screenshot.
Reported statement.
proposed changes from Starr Williams-Headen: Student no longer needs placement due to schedule change for Summer.
Standards. 34 CFR 668.14 (accurate administrative records) and ACEN Standard 5 are implicated. A removal entered against the wrong course with an inaccurate reason can eliminate a placement record rather than correct it. Lead: HU-133.
Impact. The removal with an inaccurate reason may eliminate Student A's clinical record entirely rather than transfer her to Group H, creating a gap in her clinical documentation.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-133 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.
HU-134: Lead: Dr. Powell's May 27 response to the HU-132 escalation fragmented accountability across additional leadership layers and put institutional admissions on the record (a 48-business-hour response policy, and that the regional model replaced a prior centralized model); see HU-134a, HU-134b
| Severity | Medium | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Lead / index for a split cluster (accountability fragmentation; institutional admissions) | Date added | 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Dr. Rachel Powell DNP RN (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National Online) | ||
Finding. This is a lead entry for Dr. Rachel Powell's May 27, 2026 response to the reporting student's HU-132 escalation, tracked separately as HU-134a (Powell stated many placement determinations are outside her direct control and directed higher-level concerns to additional leadership layers, identifying four administrators across two regions and adding escalation steps) and HU-134b (institutional admissions on the record, including confirmation of a 48-business-hour response policy and that the current regional model replaced a prior centralized model, with Powell disagreeing that the regional model disrupts continuity). The May 28, 2026 meeting was confirmed. See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.
Notes. New clinical-placement leadership identified: Jessica Ferra (Midwest), reporting to Jeff Hill (Regional VP, Midwest); Jolanda Smith (Florida), reporting to LeShawn Roberts (Regional VP, Florida). Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06; existing references to HU-134 resolve here. Source Group: Email: Dr. Rachel Powell (rapowell@herzing.edu) to the reporting student, May 27, 2026 (RE: Meeting). Parts: HU-134a, HU-134b. Cross-references: HU-132 (regional fragmentation), HU-128 (Week 3 no placement, prior Powell responses), HU-133 (placement error, accommodation).
HU-134a: Powell stated many placement determinations are outside her direct control and directed higher-level concerns to additional leadership layers, fragmenting accountability
| Severity | Medium | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Accountability Fragmentation / Additional Escalation Layers | Date added | 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Dr. Rachel Powell / Jessica Ferra (Midwest) / Jeff Hill (Midwest VP) / Jolanda Smith (Florida) / LeShawn Roberts (Florida VP) | ||
Finding. Dr. Powell stated that many placement determinations are outside her direct control and asked that concerns about delays or higher-level placement decisions be directed to the appropriate leadership, identifying four additional administrators across two regions.
Evidence. Dr. Rachel Powell's email to the reporting student, "RE: Meeting," May 27, 2026, asking that concerns about delays or higher-level placement decisions be directed to the appropriate leadership as many determinations are outside her direct control, and identifying the Midwest and Florida directors and their regional vice presidents. Source Group: Dr. Rachel Powell email to the reporting student, May 27, 2026.
Reported statement.
I would respectfully ask that concerns about delays or higher-level placement decisions be directed to the appropriate leadership overseeing those processes, as many of these determinations are outside my direct control.
Standards. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) is implicated: clinical placement decisions requiring escalation through multiple institutional layers add structural complexity that delays resolution. Lead: HU-134. See HU-132, HU-128.
Impact. Students in the Midwest and Florida who cannot resolve issues with their regional directors must escalate to vice presidents, adding steps and delays, while higher-level decisions are deflected elsewhere, fragmenting accountability.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-134 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.
HU-134b: Institutional admissions on the record: a 48-business-hour response policy is confirmed, and the current regional model replaced a prior centralized model, while Powell disagrees the regional model disrupts continuity
| Severity | Medium | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Institutional Admissions and Position on the Record | Date added | 2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Dr. Rachel Powell | ||
Finding. Powell's response put several institutional facts on the record: that teams have 48 business hours for response, confirming the baseline in Student A's accommodation letter (HU-133), and that the institution previously adopted a centralized model and replaced it with the current regional model because the regional model was found to better benefit prelicensure students. Powell stated she disagrees that the regional model disrupts continuity.
Evidence. Dr. Rachel Powell's email to the reporting student, May 27, 2026, stating the teams have 48 business hours for response, that the institution previously adopted a centralized model and found the regional model better benefits pre-licensure students, and defending the regional model. Source Group: Dr. Rachel Powell email to the reporting student, May 27, 2026.
Reported statement.
Our teams do have 48 business hours for response. [And:] we previously adopted a centralized model and have already found that the regional model better benefits our pre-licensure nursing students.
Standards. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) is implicated. The 48-business-hour confirmation is the institutional baseline against which documented response delays (HU-071, HU-093, HU-121, HU-128, HU-133) can be measured; the admission that the regional model replaced a centralized model confirms the structure was a choice. Lead: HU-134. See HU-133 (48-hour accommodation request), HU-132 (continuity concern).
Impact. The 48-business-hour confirmation, set against documented response delays, establishes a gap between stated policy and actual practice; the admission that the structure was a deliberate change documents that it can also be reversed.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-134 (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Documented as institutional admissions and position; no separate deficiency is asserted beyond the policy-versus-practice gap noted.
HU-136: Student K: Ascension Saint Thomas West 5D Vascular/General Surgery clinical rotation postponed June 1, 2026 because remaining items necessary for placement approval were not completed before scheduled start; students carrying a previous term incomplete hours affected; cross-regional pattern with National Online placement failures; Kate Powell (South Region Clinical Coordinator)
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Clinical Rotation Start Date Postponed / Placement Approval Items Incomplete at Start | Date added | 2026-06-02 |
| Owner | Kate Powell (Clinical Coordinator, South Region) / South Region Clinical Team / Elizabeth Mazzo | ||
Finding. On June 1, 2026, Kate Powell, Clinical Coordinator for the South Region, emailed students assigned to the Ascension Saint Thomas West 5D Vascular/General Surgery clinical rotation to notify them that the rotation would not begin as originally scheduled and that the start date had to be postponed. The stated reason was circumstances outside of the team's control and remaining items necessary for placement approval that had not been completed. The email confirms that the institution had not finalized placement approval requirements before the scheduled start date, mirroring placement readiness failures documented for other students and regions (HU-128, HU-133, HU-135). The email also references students whose rotation includes hours needed to satisfy a previous term's incomplete, confirming that some students carrying incomplete clinical hours from prior terms are affected by this postponement, compounding the delay for students already behind through no fault of their own. The email was sent to multiple students, and this issue is attributed to student Student K among the affected students. The pattern is consistent with systemic clinical placement readiness failures across multiple regions and terms: National Online (HU-128, HU-133, HU-135) and now South Region (HU-136).
Evidence. Email from Kate Powell, Clinical Coordinator (South Region), subject associated with Ascension Saint Thomas West 5D Vasc/Gen Surgery, June 1, 2026, 12:17 PM. Powell wrote that due to circumstances outside of the team's control, the upcoming clinical rotation would not begin as originally scheduled, that the start date would need to be postponed while the team worked through the remaining items necessary for placement approval, and that for students whose rotation includes hours needed to satisfy a previous term's incomplete, the team would plan accordingly to ensure all required hours are properly accounted for and completed. Powell directed recipients to contact the South Region Clinical Team or Clinical Coordinator, Kate Powell. Recipients included Kate Powell, Elizabeth Mazzo, and at least one additional student (attributed: Student K). Student: Student K. Source Group: Email, Kate Powell (Clinical Coordinator, South Region) to students re Ascension Saint Thomas West 5D Vasc/Gen Surgery clinical rotation, June 1, 2026; provided by the reporting student.
Reported statement.
due to circumstances outside of our team's control, your upcoming clinical rotation will not begin as originally scheduled. At this time, the start date will need to be postponed while we work through the remaining items necessary for placement approval. [And:] For students whose rotation includes hours needed to satisfy a previous term's incomplete, please be assured that we will plan accordingly to ensure all required hours are properly accounted for and completed.
Standards. ACEN Standard 5 requires that clinical placements be secured and approved before students are scheduled to begin. A rotation that cannot begin because remaining items necessary for placement approval are incomplete documents that the institution did not finalize placement readiness before the start date. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires that institutions coordinate clinical placement logistics so students can fulfill required hours on the published schedule. The reference to students carrying a previous term's incomplete hours indicates the postponement affects students already behind, increasing the risk they cannot complete required hours within program timelines. The phrase circumstances outside of the team's control echoes language used by the National Online clinical placement team (HU-128: at the mercy of the clinical site; HU-134: many of these determinations are outside my direct control), establishing a cross-regional pattern of attributing placement failures to external factors.
Impact. Students assigned to the Ascension Saint Thomas West 5D Vascular/General Surgery rotation, including Student K, cannot begin clinical on the originally scheduled date. Students carrying incomplete hours from a previous term face compounded delay. The postponement with no confirmed new start date creates uncertainty regarding when students can begin accruing required clinical hours. This South Region postponement, occurring contemporaneously with National Online placement issues (HU-128, HU-133, HU-135), demonstrates that clinical placement readiness failures are not isolated to one region or coordinator but appear across multiple regions in the same enrollment period.
Notes. New personnel identified: Kate Powell, Clinical Coordinator, South Region, distinct from Dr. Rachel Powell, Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National Online. These are two different people sharing a surname. Elizabeth Mazzo is identified as a co-recipient. Clinical site: Ascension Saint Thomas West, 5D Vascular/General Surgery unit. Attributed to student Student K. The cross-regional pattern is significant: the same enrollment period shows placement readiness failures in both the National Online region (the reporting student, Student A) and the South Region (Student K), suggesting a systemic rather than regional problem. Corroborating data point, from a different, unnamed student: a separate cohort member, identified in the Nursing 2027 GroupMe only by [phone redacted], reported receiving the same type of not-cleared-to-start email for the Clarksville-Vanderbilt clinical location, stating it was supposed to start on the 6th. This is a distinct student from Student K at a different site, Clarksville-Vanderbilt, Tennessee, versus Ascension Saint Thomas West, included here to document that the placement-readiness failure pattern extended to multiple sites in the same period. Cross-reference: HU-128 (Week 3 no placement), HU-133 (Student A placement error), HU-134 (Powell organizational structure), HU-135 (8-hour accommodation), HU-137 (Student R, Palmetto General), HU-138 (Janel Rizo not-cleared email), HU-071 (Spring 2025 placement crisis), HU-109 (affiliation agreements).
HU-137: Student R: clinical scheduled at Palmetto General Hospital (Hialeah, FL) with no approval confirmation; last email said not yet approved but would update asap, no follow-up came; I'm so lost, I'm worried; part of multi-site cohort pattern across Florida and Tennessee; Ann Zientara identified as Florida coordinator
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Clinical Placement Not Approved / No Follow-Up Communication / Multi-Site Cohort Pattern | Date added | 2026-06-02 |
| Owner | Ann Zientara (Florida Clinical Coordinator) / Florida Clinical Placement Team / South Region Clinical Team | ||
Finding. Student R, a student in the Nursing 2027 cohort, reported in the GroupMe that she had clinical scheduled at Palmetto General Hospital in Hialeah, Florida, but had not received confirmation the site was approved to begin. She wrote asking whether anyone else was set to do clinical tomorrow at Palmetto General, noting that the last email she had received the prior week stated they weren't yet approved to begin but would be updated asap, and that she still haven't heard back, adding that she felt so lost, and separately that she was worried. The last communication she received stated the site was not yet approved but that an update would come soon; no update followed. The GroupMe thread documents that this was not an isolated incident but part of a multi-site pattern across Florida and Tennessee: Student R at Palmetto General; a student, Student BE, whose clinical was in Stuart, Florida, who did not go, emailed, and was then started the following week; an unnamed student who received a not-cleared email for the Clarksville-Vanderbilt location, supposed to start on the 6th; and a student with clinical scheduled in Tennessee who had not received any email and had been emailing for weeks about not having enough information to know where to go. Peers advised each other to email the Florida clinical placement contact, identified as Ann Zientara, and, in some cases, to simply not go and email stating they had received no update. The pattern documents that students across multiple Florida and Tennessee clinical sites were left without confirmed placement approval immediately before scheduled start dates.
Evidence. Nursing 2027 GroupMe, June 2026. Student R asked whether anyone else was set to do clinical tomorrow at Palmetto General Hospital in Hialeah, Florida, stating that the last email received the prior week said the site weren't yet approved but would be updated asap, and that she still haven't heard back, adding that she felt so lost. Student R separately said she was worried. A cohort member identified as Student BE told her to just dont go and send an email saying she didnt get an update, reasoning that if no update was received she wouldnt know, and said she think Student R would be fine, since that approach worked for Student BE the prior week when Student BE was fine and was started that week; Student BE also advised emailing the Florida clinical placement email, adding that Student BE's own clinical was in Stuart that week. Student R asked whether the coordinator was Ann Zientara, saying she's the one who has been coordinating. An unidentified student, shown only by [phone redacted], stated they received the exact same email for the Clarksville-Vanderbilt location, which was supposed to start on the 6th. Another unidentified student, in Tennessee, stated they had clinical scheduled for tomorrow in Tennessee and hadn't got an email at all, and that today the email finally arrived after weeks of emailing about not having enough information to know where to go. Student: Student R. Source Group: Nursing 2027 GroupMe, Student R and cohort members re Palmetto General Hospital (Hialeah, FL) and multiple Florida/Tennessee clinical sites, June 2026; provided by the reporting student.
Reported statement. Student R, a student pseudonym, paraphrased asking whether anyone else had clinical the next day at Palmetto General, noting the last email said she was not yet approved but would be updated soon and that no update had come, and expressing that she felt lost and, separately, that she was worried. Other students, including Student BE and unnamed cohort members, described similar not-cleared or no-information situations at Stuart, Florida; the Clarksville-Vanderbilt location in Tennessee; and other Tennessee sites, and advised each other to email the Florida placement coordinator, identified as Ann Zientara, or simply not attend and email that no update had been received.
Standards. ACEN Standard 5 requires that clinical placements be approved and confirmed before students are scheduled to begin. A student scheduled for clinical the next day at Palmetto General Hospital who has received no approval confirmation, after being told an update would come as soon as possible, documents that the institution did not finalize placement approval before the scheduled start. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to coordinate clinical placement logistics and communicate approval status to students in time for them to plan. The multi-site nature of the failure, Palmetto General, Stuart, Clarksville-Vanderbilt, and other Tennessee sites, indicates a systemic coordination breakdown rather than an isolated site issue. The fact that students resorted to advising each other to simply not go reflects a breakdown in authoritative institutional guidance.
Impact. Student R and other cohort members could not determine whether to report to clinical, having received no confirmation that their sites were approved. Students faced the choice of either traveling to a site that might not be ready or not attending and risking attendance consequences. The lack of follow-up after being promised an update as soon as possible left students, in Student R's words, so lost and worried. The cohort-wide, multi-site nature of the failure, Florida and Tennessee sites simultaneously, demonstrates that the placement readiness problem documented for individual students (HU-136 Student K, HU-133 Student A) is a broad systemic failure affecting many students across the program in the same enrollment period.
Notes. Attributed to student Student R (Palmetto General Hospital, Hialeah, FL). Ann Zientara is identified as the Florida clinical placement coordinator, per Student R's statement that she has been coordinating. Other cohort members referenced: Student BE (Stuart, FL); an unnamed student at [phone redacted] (Clarksville-Vanderbilt, also referenced in the HU-136 notes); and an unnamed student with a Tennessee clinical. This issue documents the cohort-wide pattern; the Janel Rizo not-cleared email is documented separately as HU-138. Cross-reference: HU-136 (Student K, Ascension Saint Thomas West), HU-138 (Janel Rizo not-cleared email), HU-128 (Week 3 no placement, National Online), HU-133 (Student A), HU-134 (Powell organizational structure), HU-071 (Spring 2025 placement crisis), HU-109 (affiliation agreements).
HU-138: Janel Rizo BSN RN (Adjunct Clinical Faculty) emailed students at 10:33 PM stating "Last I heard it seems we weren't cleared to start" with casual sign-off "Hope to see you all next week"; faculty uncertainty and late-night casual tone for a significant placement failure; recipients included Doreen Palmer and Ann Zientara
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Late-Night Clinical Faculty Notification of Placement Not Cleared / Casual Tone for Significant Failure | Date added | 2026-06-02 |
| Owner | Janel Rizo BSN RN (Adjunct Clinical Faculty) / Ann Zientara (Florida Clinical Coordinator) / Doreen Palmer | ||
Finding. Adjunct Clinical Faculty member Janel Rizo BSN RN (jrizo@herzing.edu) emailed students at 10:33 PM to notify them that their clinical rotation was not cleared to start. The full message read: Hi students, Last I heard it seems we weren't cleared to start. Hope to see you all next week! The email was sent to multiple recipients including Doreen Palmer and Ann Zientara plus four additional recipients. Two concerns are documented. First, timing and tone: a notification that a clinical rotation is not cleared to start was sent at 10:33 PM with a casual sign-off, "Hope to see you all next week!", and qualified, secondhand language, "Last I heard it seems we weren't cleared to start," which does not convey the certainty or seriousness students need to plan around a placement that is not proceeding. Second, faculty uncertainty: the phrase "Last I heard it seems" indicates the clinical faculty member herself did not have definitive information about whether the placement was cleared, reflecting the same information breakdown documented elsewhere in the clinical placement process. This email corroborates the multi-site placement readiness failures documented in HU-136 (Student K, Ascension Saint Thomas West) and HU-137 (Student R, Palmetto General).
Evidence. Email from Janel Rizo BSN RN, Adjunct Clinical Faculty, Herzing University Online (jrizo@herzing.edu, www.herzing.edu), sent 10:33 PM to Palmer, Doreen; Zientara, Ann; plus four recipients. Full text: Hi students, Last I heard it seems we weren't cleared to start. Hope to see you all next week! Janel Rizo, BSN, RN, Adjunct Clinical Faculty, Herzing University Online. Shared via the Nursing 2027 GroupMe by a student, Student R, who remarked, "Look what I just got at this hour."
Reported statement.
Hi students, Last I heard it seems we weren't cleared to start. Hope to see you all next week! Janel Rizo, BSN, RN, Adjunct Clinical Faculty, Herzing University Online.
Standards. ACEN Standard 5 requires that clinical placements be confirmed and communicated to students through reliable, authoritative channels. A clinical faculty member communicating that a placement is not cleared to start using qualified secondhand language, "Last I heard it seems," indicates the faculty member lacks definitive placement information, which is itself a communication and coordination failure. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to maintain functional administrative processes for clinical placement confirmation and student notification. A 10:33 PM notification with a casual tone for a significant placement failure does not meet the standard of clear, timely, professional communication students need to manage their academic obligations. The student receiving the email noted the late hour, remarking, "Look what I just got at this hour."
Impact. Students who received this 10:33 PM email learned only the night before, or shortly before, their scheduled clinical that the placement was not cleared, and even then through uncertain language, "Last I heard it seems." Students could not reliably plan whether to report to clinical, arrange travel, or coordinate work and family obligations. The casual "Hope to see you all next week!" provided no confirmed alternative start date. The faculty member's own uncertainty signals that the information breakdown extends to the clinical instructors responsible for supervising students, not just the placement coordinators.
Notes. New personnel identified: Janel Rizo BSN RN (jrizo@herzing.edu), Adjunct Clinical Faculty, Herzing University Online. Ann Zientara is identified as a recipient and, per the Nursing 2027 GroupMe, the coordinator who has been coordinating Florida clinical placements, based on a student's statement that she is the one who has been coordinating. Doreen Palmer is identified as a recipient, likely a student or co-faculty member. This email was shared in the Nursing 2027 GroupMe by Student R (see HU-137). Cross-reference: HU-136 (Student K, Ascension Saint Thomas West postponed), HU-137 (Student R, Palmetto General not approved), HU-128 (Week 3 no placement), HU-071 (Spring 2025 placement crisis).
HU-141: Lead: Student A's prolonged clinical-placement struggle (May 5 to 22, 2026), including an 8-plus-day Clinician Nexus permission lockout, a credential-type hours mismatch, 9-hour shifts and carryover-hours confusion, an onboarding squeeze with childcare and work disruption, and a placement target that changed mid-correspondence; see HU-141a through HU-141f
| Severity | Critical | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Lead / index for a split cluster (lockout; hours mismatch; scheduling; onboarding squeeze; moving target) | Date added | 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Starr Williams-Headen (Clinical Coordinator, Online Pre-Licensure) / Kate Powell (Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator, South Region) / Dr. Prashad / Dr. Black / Jessica Ferra | ||
Finding. This is a lead entry for the prolonged correspondence (May 5 to 22, 2026) underlying the HU-133 snapshot, tracked separately as HU-141a (an 8-plus-day Clinician Nexus permission lockout despite being told she was added, with Nexus support confirming she was never actually added to the Group H rotation), HU-141b (repeated failed fix attempts and a records-integrity failure, with the coordinator stating records showed she was added by two people while she remained locked out), HU-141c (a credential-type hours mismatch, 90 Med-Surg hours scheduled when NSG 525 requires 60 Med-Surg and 48 mental health hours, combining pending program-chair approval), HU-141d (9-hour shifts and an hours shortfall, plus 24 carryover incomplete hours from Clinical 1 with an August 26 deadline), HU-141e (a Memorial Day onboarding squeeze with childcare and work disruption and a raised prospect of being penalized through no fault of her own), and HU-141f (a placement target that changed mid-correspondence and a regional-overlap inconsistency). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.
Notes. New personnel: Kate Powell (Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator, South Region) and Starr Williams-Headen BSHM MHRM (Clinical Coordinator, Online Pre-Licensure, cwilliamsheaden@herzing.edu, [phone redacted]). The correct Group H rotation in this chain: RN 261402, MCY 4W Neuro Med/Surg, Thursdays 6 a.m. to 3 p.m., May 28 to August 20 (skip July 2), twelve 9-hour shifts totaling 108 hours. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06; existing references to HU-141 resolve here. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Email chain (15 pages): Student A with Kate Powell, Starr Williams-Headen, Dr. Prashad, Dr. Gombar, Jessica Ferra, Rachel Powell, Susan Schlueter, May 5 to 22, 2026; provided by the reporting student. Parts: HU-141a, HU-141b, HU-141c, HU-141d, HU-141e, HU-141f. Cross-references: HU-133 (Student A rotation error snapshot), HU-132 (regional fragmentation), HU-134 (organizational structure), HU-135 (8-hour and 9-hour scheduling), HU-128 (Week 3 no placement), HU-071.
HU-141a: An 8-plus-day Clinician Nexus permission lockout, despite being told she was added, with Nexus support confirming she was never actually added to the Group H rotation
| Severity | Critical | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Prolonged Clinical-System Permission Lockout | Date added | 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Starr Williams-Headen (Clinical Coordinator) / Clinician Nexus | ||
Finding. From May 14 through May 22, 2026, Student A repeatedly received permission-denied errors at Clinician Nexus, even after being told she had been added to the Group H rotation. Clinician Nexus support told her that Starr Williams-Headen had not actually added her to the Group H rotation, which is why she received the error.
Evidence. Student A, May 14, 2026: she saw she was added to the Neuro Med Surg rotation in Nexus, but it showed permission denied and was not reflecting in Core ELMs. Student A, May 21, 2026, on her third attempt: each time she accessed it, it said permission denied, with only one week left to do all of her onboarding. Student A, May 22, 2026: Nexus said Starr had not added her to the Group H rotation, which is why she got the error. A Clinician Nexus error screen was also provided. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Email chain, May 14 to 22, 2026; Clinician Nexus error screen.
Reported statement. Student A, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that each time she accessed the system it showed permission denied, that she had only one week left to do all of her onboarding, and that Nexus support said the issue was that she had never actually been added to the Group H rotation, "you do not have permission to perform this action, please contact an administrator."
Standards. 34 CFR 668.14 (functional clinical-placement systems and accurate records) and ACEN Standard 5 (placements must be functional before students begin) are implicated. An 8-plus-day lockout after the student was told she was added documents a placement-configuration failure. Lead: HU-141.
Impact. Locked out for over a week, Student A could not complete onboarding or confirm her placement as her clinical start approached.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-141 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.
HU-141b: Repeated failed fix attempts and a records-integrity failure: the coordinator stated records showed she was added by two people while she remained locked out, and a sub-minute fix was left undone
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Records-Integrity Failure / Repeated Failed Fixes | Date added | 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Starr Williams-Headen (Clinical Coordinator) | ||
Finding. On May 22, Starr Williams-Headen stated that records showed Student A had been added by both herself and the site coordinator, yet acknowledged it did not seem to have gone through and requested it be done again. The add was attempted on May 12 and again on May 22, while the Nexus IT contact, Peter, said the change takes only a few minutes once the student is added to the rotation and schedule, documenting that the institution could not reliably execute a quick change and that its records did not match reality.
Evidence. Starr Williams-Headen's statement, May 22, 2026; Student A's email relaying the Nexus IT contact's confirmation. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Email chain, May 12 to 22, 2026.
Reported statement. Student A, a student pseudonym, paraphrased that IT confirmed the fix only takes a few minutes once she is properly added to the rotation and schedule, and that the underlying issue was she had never actually been added to the Group H rotation.
Standards. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability and records integrity) is implicated: records showing the student was added while she remained locked out reflect a records-integrity failure, and repeated failed attempts at a sub-minute change reflect an administrative-execution failure. Lead: HU-141.
Impact. The institution's records did not reflect the student's actual access, so even internal verification could not be relied upon, prolonging the lockout.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-141 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.
HU-141c: A credential-type hours mismatch: 90 Med-Surg hours scheduled when NSG 525 requires 60 Med-Surg and 48 mental health hours, with combining pending program-chair approval
| Severity | Critical | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Hours Allocation / Credential-Type Mismatch | Date added | 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Kate Powell (Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator, South Region) / Dr. Prashad / Dr. Black | ||
Finding. Kate Powell scheduled Student A for a Group K rotation of 90 hours on a Med-Surg unit, but NSG 525 (Clinical 2) requires 60 Med-Surg hours and 48 mental health hours, which cannot be satisfied entirely on a Med-Surg unit. Kate Powell stated the hours could be combined under Minnesota Board of Nursing guidelines if Dr. Prashad and Dr. Black approved, an approval that was still pending.
Evidence. Kate Powell's email, May 6, 2026: NSG 525 requires 60 Med-Surg hours and 48 mental health hours, but under MN BON guidelines they can be combined if Dr. Prashad and Dr. Black approve. Student A repeatedly asked how 90 Med-Surg hours would satisfy a requirement that includes 48 mental health hours. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Email chain, May 5 to 6, 2026.
Reported statement.
NSG 525 requires 60 MedSurg hours and 48 mental health hours but due to the MN BON guidelines we can combine them if Dr. Prashad and Dr. Black approve.
Standards. ACEN Standard 5 requires placements include the correct required clinical-experience types. Minnesota Board of Nursing clinical-hour requirements govern the 60 Med-Surg and 48 mental health split, and any combining must comply with MN BON rules and be properly approved. Scheduling 90 Med-Surg hours against a 60 Med-Surg plus 48 mental health requirement, with approval pending, is a credential-type allocation error. Lead: HU-141.
Impact. Even if Student A completed the Med-Surg rotation, she risked not satisfying the mental health hour requirement for NSG 525 unless the combining was properly approved.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-141 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.
HU-141d: 9-hour shifts and an hours shortfall, plus 24 carryover incomplete hours from Clinical 1 with an August 26 deadline
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Shift Length / Hours Shortfall / Carryover-Hours Tracking | Date added | 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Kate Powell / Starr Williams-Headen / Dr. Prashad | ||
Finding. The Group K schedule used 9-hour shifts (2 p.m. to 11 p.m.), and Student A calculated that this did not give her the 108 hours needed for Clinical 2. Separately, she was told 24 incomplete hours from Clinical 1 (NSG 522) would be added onto her Clinical 2 schedule with an August 26, 2026 deadline, with ongoing confusion about where those hours would be completed.
Evidence. Student A's emails, May 5 to 12, 2026: the Wednesday 2 p.m. to 11 p.m. 9-hour shifts do not give her enough hours (108 needed for Clinical 2), and she was told the 24 incomplete Clinical 1 hours would be added onto Clinical 2; the corrected Group H rotation was described as twelve 9-hour shifts totaling 108 hours. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Email chain, May 5 to 12, 2026.
Reported statement.
Doing the math that does not give me enough hours (108 that I need for Clinical 2).
Standards. ACEN Standard 5 requires accurate hours configuration; the carryover of 24 incomplete Clinical 1 hours must be tracked against the August 26, 2026 deadline. The 9-hour shift scheduling and resulting hours math mirror concerns in HU-135. Lead: HU-141.
Impact. Miscalculated shift hours and untracked carryover hours create a risk that Student A does not complete required hours on schedule or is confused about where to complete them.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-141 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.
HU-141e: A Memorial Day onboarding squeeze with childcare and work disruption, and a raised prospect of being penalized for not attending through no fault of her own
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Onboarding Squeeze / Childcare and Work Disruption / Penalty Risk | Date added | 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Starr Williams-Headen / Clinical Coordinator / Dr. Prashad | ||
Finding. Locked out until the last minute, Student A noted that with the Memorial Day long weekend she would have only two business days to complete onboarding if accepted by May 28 at 8 AM, and could not arrange childcare or time off work without locked clinical dates. She asked whether she would be penalized for not showing up through no fault of her own.
Evidence. Student A, May 22, 2026: with the Memorial Day long weekend she would have two business days to onboard if accepted by May 28 at 8 AM, and asked whether she would be penalized for not showing up Thursday because she had no proper communication about her clinical site; Student A repeatedly emphasized she needed locked clinical dates to arrange childcare and time off work. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Email chain, May 21 to 22, 2026.
Reported statement.
If I don't show up on Thursday because I haven't had any proper communication about my clinical site, will I be penalized for this?
Standards. ACEN Standard 5 and 34 CFR 668.14 require functional, timely placement so students can prepare. Penalizing a student for nonattendance caused by the institution's own placement and communication failures would be an unfair-grading concern, paralleling the accountability asymmetry documented in HU-132. Lead: HU-141.
Impact. Student A faced a real risk of missing her clinical start, and of an academic penalty, because of institutional delays she did not cause, and could not plan childcare or work around unlocked dates.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-141 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.
HU-141f: The placement target changed mid-correspondence, and a South Region coordinator handled a National Online student, a regional-overlap inconsistency
| Severity | Medium | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Shifting Placement Target / Regional-Overlap Inconsistency | Date added | 2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Kate Powell (South Region) / Starr Williams-Headen / Clinical Coordination | ||
Finding. The correct Group H placement itself changed over the correspondence: the HU-133 snapshot referenced NSG 525 Group H with Professor Joanna Hogan at Monarch Maplewood, while this chain shows a different correct placement, Group H at MCY 4W Neuro Med/Surg with RN 261402. In addition, Kate Powell, the Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator for the South Region, handled Student A's placement even though Student A is in the National Online region, a regional-overlap inconsistency relevant to the regional-fragmentation concerns in HU-132 and HU-134.
Evidence. Comparison of HU-133 evidence with the May 5 to 22 email chain: HU-133 referenced Group H at Monarch Maplewood (Joanna Hogan); this May 5 to 22 chain shows the correct Group H as MCY 4W Neuro Med/Surg (RN 261402, Thursdays 6a to 3p); Kate Powell (South Region) corresponded on the placement for a National Online student. Student: Student A ([email redacted]). Source Group: Email chain, May 5 to 22, 2026.
Reported statement.
Starr, you can move her to Regions with Professor Tesfay with the NSG 123 Group E or Group G with Professor Beh-Grear.
Standards. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability and consistency) and ACEN Standard 5 are implicated. A correct-placement target that shifts mid-correspondence, and cross-region handling of an online student, compound the confusion and connect to the regional-fragmentation concerns. Lead: HU-141. See HU-132, HU-134.
Impact. A moving placement target makes it harder for the student and the institution to confirm the correct rotation, and cross-region handling adds ambiguity about who owns the placement.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-141 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.
HU-144: Student A and Student Q: Group K clinical rotation (Vicki K, MCY 5E) cut from 10 days/90 hours to 6 days/54 hours after instructor canceled four clinical days mid-rotation; 36-hour shortfall and compliance risk; instructor directed students to escalate to Starr and Dr. Prashad for a make-up plan; compounds Student A hours problems in HU-141
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Clinical Hours Reduced 40 Percent by Instructor Mid-Rotation (90 to 54 Hours) / Compliance Risk | Date added | 2026-06-04 |
| Owner | Starr Williams-Headen (Clinical Coordinator) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Vicki K (Clinical Instructor, Group K) | ||
Finding. Student A and Student Q, both in the Group K clinical rotation (Vicki K, MCY 5E Ortho/Spine/Med-Surg), reported to Starr Williams-Headen and Dr. Prashad that their clinical hours have been reduced by 40 percent due to clinical days being canceled by the instructor mid-rotation. The rotation was originally scheduled for ten clinical days from June 3 through August 5, meeting Wednesdays 2:00 PM to 11:00 PM at 9 hours per day, totaling 90 clinical hours. The clinical instructor, Vicki K, informed the group that they would not meet during the weeks of July 1 or July 8 and that the final clinical day would be July 22, which also eliminates the previously scheduled July 29 and August 5 dates. This removes four scheduled clinical days, reducing the rotation from 10 days (90 hours) to 6 days (54 hours), a loss of 36 clinical hours. Student Q independently identified the same concern. The clinical instructor herself, Vicki K, recommended that the students contact Starr and Dr. Prashad for clarification on how the lost hours would be addressed. The students asked four specific questions: how the missing hours will be made up; whether additional clinical dates are being scheduled; how the program will ensure Group K meets required clinical hour requirements; and whether students need to take any action to remain in compliance. This compounds the clinical hours problems already documented for Student A in HU-141, where the Group K 90-hour Med-Surg schedule was already in tension with the NSG 525 requirement of 60 Med-Surg plus 48 mental health hours.
Evidence. Email: Student A and Student Q to Starr Williams-Headen and Dr. Prashad, June 2026, stating that they were reaching out regarding a significant concern about their current Group K clinical rotation with Vicki K on MCY 5E Ortho/Spine/Med-Surg. According to the schedule provided, the rotation was originally scheduled for ten clinical days from June 3 through August 5, meeting Wednesdays from 2:00 PM to 11:00 PM; at 9 hours per clinical day, this would have provided a total of 90 clinical hours. However, yesterday evening, the clinical instructor, Vicki K, informed them the group would not be meeting during the weeks of July 1 or July 8 and that the final clinical day would be July 22, also eliminating the previously scheduled July 29 and August 5 dates. As a result, four scheduled clinical days were removed from the rotation (10 days times 9 hours equals 90; 6 days times 9 hours equals 54). Another student in the same rotation, Student Q, independently identified the same concern. After discussing the issue with them, Vicki recommended they contact Starr and Dr. Prashad as soon as possible for clarification regarding how the lost clinical hours would be addressed. Student: Student A ([email redacted]) and Student Q. Source Group: Email, Student A and Student Q to Starr Williams-Headen and Dr. Prashad re Group K clinical rotation hours reduction, June 2026.
Reported statement. Student A and Student Q, student pseudonyms, jointly described the schedule reduction, noting the rotation originally provided 90 clinical hours over ten Wednesday shifts at 9 hours per day, and that four canceled days left the group with only 54 clinical hours instead of the 90 originally scheduled. They asked how the missing hours would be made up, whether additional clinical dates were being scheduled, how the program would ensure the group met required clinical hour requirements, and whether they needed to take any action to remain in compliance.
Standards. ACEN Standard 5 requires that clinical experiences provide sufficient hours and learning opportunities to meet course and program outcomes; a 40 percent reduction in scheduled clinical hours, from 90 to 54, mid-rotation jeopardizes the program's ability to deliver required clinical experience. State Board of Nursing clinical hour requirements require nursing programs to ensure students complete the minimum clinical hours required for licensure eligibility; a unilateral reduction of 36 hours by a clinical instructor, without a documented make-up plan, places students at risk of not meeting those requirements. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to coordinate clinical scheduling so that students can complete required hours; the fact that the clinical instructor canceled four days and directed students to contact the program for a solution indicates the reduction was not planned or coordinated with the program. The students appropriately requested written clarification on the make-up plan and their compliance obligations, and the institution's response and any make-up scheduling should be tracked.
Impact. Student A and Student Q face a 36-hour shortfall in clinical hours for the Group K rotation, which could prevent them from meeting course and licensure clinical hour requirements if not remedied. Without a documented make-up plan, the students cannot plan their schedules, including work and childcare, or confirm they remain on track. For Student A, this stacks on top of the hours-allocation and credential-type problems already documented in HU-141 (90 Med-Surg hours versus a 60 Med-Surg plus 48 mental health requirement, plus 24 carryover hours from Clinical 1); the further loss of 36 hours deepens an already precarious hours situation. That two students independently identified the same problem, and that the clinical instructor herself directed them to escalate, indicates this is a real scheduling and hours deficiency rather than a misunderstanding. If Group K students do not receive make-up hours, they risk course failure or delayed progression through no fault of their own.
Notes. New personnel identified: Student Q (student in Group K clinical rotation). Clinical instructor Vicki K (Group K, MCY 5E Ortho/Spine/Med-Surg, Wednesdays 2 p.m. to 11 p.m.) confirmed the cancellations and directed students to the program. Canceled dates: weeks of July 1 and July 8, with the rotation ending July 22, eliminating July 29 and August 5, four clinical days, 36 hours. This issue connects directly to HU-141 (Student A Group K hours allocation and credential-type mismatch) and the broader clinical placement failures. Note the recurring theme of the 9-hour clinical day in Group K (2 p.m. to 11 p.m.), which also bears on the 8-hour accommodation concerns documented for the reporting student in HU-135. Cross-reference: HU-141 (Student A clinical placement, Group K hours), HU-133 (Student A rotation error), HU-128 (no placement), HU-071 (placement crisis pattern), HU-135 (9-hour shift, accommodation). Possible follow-up: the program's response on make-up hours and whether Group K students are brought back to the required hour total.
HU-148: Clinical schedule changed four times in one week before clinicals even began (June 4, 2026 meeting account; expands HU-135)
| Severity | Medium | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Schedule Instability / Repeated Last-Minute Changes Before Clinical Start | Date added | 2026-06-04 |
| Owner | Professor Troy Frazier FNP-BC / Dr. Rachel Powell / Clinical Placement | ||
Finding. In the June 4, 2026 meeting, the reporting student described that his clinical schedule changed four times in a single week before clinicals had even started. He recounted the times shifting from 7:30 to 6:00 (about ten and a half hours), to 7:30 with a potential debrief afterward, to 6:45 to 2:30, all within one week, and stated that his schedule had changed four times that week alone and he had not even started clinicals yet. He attributed the instability primarily to the professor, Troy Frazier, a new faculty member, rather than to the clinical site, noting the site had indicated there was flexibility. This expands the schedule-instability and over-eight-hours concerns already documented in HU-135 with the specific account of four changes in one week and the new proposed time blocks.
Evidence. Recorded meeting (audio and transcript), June 4, 2026: the reporting student stated that his schedule had changed four times that week alone and he had not even started clinicals yet; that at one point it was 7:30 to 6, which is way over the eight hours; then 7:30, but potentially after for debrief; and that it had changed again to 6:45 to 2:30, all within the span of a week; that the clinical site had said there is flexibility; and that what he needs is consistency and effective communication. He added that Frazier first had him on a 10-hour schedule, and he pushed back. Student: The reporting student. Source: June 4, 2026 recorded meeting (audio and transcript). Source Group: Recorded meeting (audio plus transcript), June 4, 2026: the reporting student with Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP, identified as Speaker 3) and the ADA/Title IX coordinator referred to as Emily/Emilie (Speaker 4); provided by the reporting student.
Reported statement.
my schedule has changed four times this week alone, and I have not even started clinicals yet. At one point it was 7:30 to 6, which is way over the eight hours. Then 7:30, but potentially after for debrief. Now he has changed it again to 6:45 to 2:30, and this has all happened in the span of a week. The clinical site has said there is flexibility... what I need is consistency and communication that is effective. First, he had me on a 10-hour schedule, then I pushed back.
Standards. ACEN Standard 5 requires that clinical scheduling be communicated clearly and consistently to students. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to coordinate clinical logistics so students can plan. The repeated last-minute changes, combined with an initial schedule exceeding the approved eight-hour accommodation, reflect a coordination and communication failure. Cross-reference HU-135 (same clinical, same accommodation), HU-149 (no meeting point), HU-150 (insufficient notice).
Impact. The repeated schedule changes prevented the reporting student from arranging a dog sitter, coordinating his sleep schedule (relevant to narcolepsy), and planning medication and meals (relevant to diabetes and the GI medication). The instability compounded the difficulty of starting clinicals with adequate planning.
Notes. Expands HU-135 with the specific four-changes-in-one-week account. Professor Troy Frazier FNP-BC (trofrazier@herzing.edu) is identified in HU-135. Cross-reference: HU-135, HU-149, HU-150. Part of the June 4, 2026 meeting group (HU-145 through HU-152).
HU-149: No clinical location or meeting point provided less than 24 hours before the clinical start (June 4, 2026 meeting)
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | No Meeting Point / Reporting Location Confirmed Less Than 24 Hours Before Start | Date added | 2026-06-04 |
| Owner | Dr. Rachel Powell / Professor Troy Frazier FNP-BC / Clinical Placement | ||
Finding. During the June 4, 2026 meeting, the reporting student stated that, with clinicals starting the next day, less than 24 hours away, he still did not know where to report. Dr. Danielle Laban messaged Dr. Rachel Powell during the meeting and relayed that the reporting student had the location but not the meeting point, and that Powell would direct the faculty member, Troy, to message the reporting student the meeting point that day. The reporting student had emailed Dr. Rachel Powell the night before asking for the location and confirmation of times and had not received it. This documents that the specific reporting location and meeting point were not confirmed to the student until the institution scrambled to provide it during a meeting held the day before the clinical start.
Evidence. Recorded meeting (audio and transcript), June 4, 2026: the reporting student stated he still did not have a location, did not even know where he was going the next day, and that was less than 24 hours away; he stated he had emailed Rachel Powell asking her to please get back to him with the location and confirm the times. Dr. Danielle Laban stated she was messaging Rachel on the side, that Rachel said the reporting student has the location, just not the meeting point, and that she was going to ask Troy, the faculty member, to message him about that, since the meeting point is the piece that needs to be communicated, and she was directing Troy to make sure he sends that today. Student: The reporting student. Source: June 4, 2026 recorded meeting (audio and transcript). Source Group: Recorded meeting (audio plus transcript), June 4, 2026: the reporting student with Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP, identified as Speaker 3) and the ADA/Title IX coordinator referred to as Emily/Emilie (Speaker 4); provided by the reporting student.
Reported statement.
I still do not have a location. I do not even know where I am going tomorrow at this point, and that is less than 24 hours away. I emailed Rachel Powell and said, can you please get back to me with the location and confirm these times.
Standards. ACEN Standard 5 requires that students be informed of clinical placement details, including reporting location, in advance of the start. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to coordinate placements so students have the information they need to attend. Not providing a confirmed meeting point until the day before the clinical start reflects a placement-readiness and communication failure consistent with the broader pattern (HU-128, HU-136, HU-137). Cross-reference HU-135, HU-148.
Impact. The reporting student could not plan travel or confirm logistics for a clinical starting in under 24 hours because he did not have a confirmed meeting point. This is the same placement-readiness failure documented for other students and adds to the stress and uncertainty around his clinical start.
Notes. Cross-reference: HU-135, HU-148, HU-128, HU-136, HU-137, HU-141 (placement-readiness pattern). Dr. Rachel Powell (rapowell@herzing.edu); Professor Troy Frazier FNP-BC. Part of the June 4, 2026 meeting group (HU-145 through HU-152).
HU-150: Less than one week notice to begin clinicals (June 4, 2026 meeting account)
| Severity | Medium | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Insufficient Advance Notice of Clinical Start | Date added | 2026-06-04 |
| Owner | Clinical Placement / Dr. Rachel Powell | ||
Finding. In the June 4, 2026 meeting, the reporting student stated that he was given less than a week to plan for his clinical start. He found out the prior Thursday that he would begin clinicals that week, and contrasted this with his experience at a prior nursing school where students were typically told three to four weeks in advance and had time to plan. He noted that the short notice, combined with the repeated schedule changes (HU-148), made it very difficult to arrange the logistics tied to his accommodations (dog sitter, sleep schedule, medication, meals).
Evidence. Recorded meeting (audio and transcript), June 4, 2026: the reporting student stated he was given less than a week's notice to plan all of this out; that he found out on Thursday that he was going to start clinicals that week; that he attended a nursing school prior to coming to Herzing, and students there are usually told three to four weeks in advance and have time to plan; and that he was told less than a week. Student: The reporting student. Source: June 4, 2026 recorded meeting (audio and transcript). Source Group: Recorded meeting (audio plus transcript), June 4, 2026: the reporting student with Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP, identified as Speaker 3) and the ADA/Title IX coordinator referred to as Emily/Emilie (Speaker 4); provided by the reporting student.
Reported statement.
I was given less than a week's notice to plan all of this out. I found out on Thursday that I was going to start clinicals this week. I was at a nursing school prior to coming to Herzing, and students are usually told three, four weeks in advance and have time to plan. I was told less than a week.
Standards. ACEN Standard 5 requires that clinical assignments be communicated with adequate lead time for students to prepare. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) requires institutions to coordinate placements so students can plan. Less than a week's notice for a clinical start is inconsistent with reasonable advance-notice practice and compounds the accommodation-related planning burden. Cross-reference HU-148 (schedule instability), HU-149 (no meeting point), HU-135.
Impact. The short notice gave the reporting student minimal time to arrange care for his service dog, adjust his sleep schedule (narcolepsy), and plan medication and meals (diabetes, GI medication), increasing the burden of an already difficult clinical start and contributing to the overall sense of being overwhelmed he described.
Notes. Cross-reference: HU-148 (schedule instability), HU-149 (no meeting point), HU-135. Part of the June 4, 2026 meeting group (HU-145 through HU-152).
HU-154: Lead: the evening before clinical, two officials gave conflicting start times four minutes apart, and the correction was not sent reply-all, leaving team records unreconciled; see HU-154a, HU-154b
| Severity | Medium | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Lead / index for a split cluster (conflicting start times; non-reply-all correction) | Date added | 2026-06-04 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National Online) / Professor Troy Frazier FNP-BC (Adjunct Clinical Instructor) | ||
Finding. This is a lead entry for a clinical-scheduling communication failure on June 4, 2026, hours after the meeting held to align everyone on the reporting student's schedule (HU-153), tracked separately as HU-154a (two officials gave conflicting clinical start times four minutes apart, Dr. Powell stating 6:45 am at 4:49 PM and Professor Frazier stating 6:30 am at 4:53 PM) and HU-154b (Frazier's differing time was sent only to the reporting student, not reply-all, so the ADA office and other staff may still have the 6:45 start on record). In fairness, Frazier's schedule otherwise concludes at 2:30 PM, within the eight-hour and 4:30 PM limits. See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.
Notes. A possible reconciliation, a 6:30 brief preceding a 6:45 floor start, is not stated by either email and is documented as a possibility, not a fact. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06; existing references to HU-154 resolve here. Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Two emails dated June 4, 2026: Dr. Rachel Powell (4:49 PM) to the reporting student, Thompson, Laban, ADA, Frazier, cc Prashad and nationalprelclinical; Troy Frazier (4:53 PM) to the reporting student only; provided by the reporting student. Parts: HU-154a, HU-154b. Cross-references: HU-153 (alignment meeting), HU-135, HU-148, HU-149, HU-151.
HU-154a: Two officials gave conflicting clinical start times four minutes apart the evening before clinical (Dr. Powell 6:45 am at 4:49 PM; Professor Frazier 6:30 am at 4:53 PM)
| Severity | Medium | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Conflicting Clinical Start Times From Two Officials | Date added | 2026-06-04 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Dr. Rachel Powell / Professor Troy Frazier FNP-BC | ||
Finding. Hours after the alignment meeting, two officials sent conflicting clinical start times four minutes apart. At 4:49 PM, Dr. Rachel Powell wrote that Professor Frazier would meet the reporting student in the front lobby for a clinical start time of 6:45 am. At 4:53 PM, Professor Troy Frazier wrote that clinic would begin at 6:30 am, with a fifteen-minute brief, hospital shift change beginning at 6:50, an eight-hour shift concluding at 2:30 PM, and a debrief before the end of the shift. Neither email reconciled the difference, leaving the reporting student with two arrival times the evening before clinical.
Evidence. Email 1, Dr. Rachel Powell (DNP, RN, Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National Online), June 4, 2026, 4:49 PM. Email 2, Troy Frazier (Adjunct Clinical Instructor), June 4, 2026, 4:53 PM. Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Emails June 4, 2026: Dr. Rachel Powell (4:49 PM) and Troy Frazier (4:53 PM).
Reported statement.
[Powell, 4:49 PM] Professor Fraizer will meet you in the front lobby for your clinical start time of 6:45 am. [Frazier, 4:53 PM] We will begin clinic at 6:30am... Since this is an 8-hour shift, We will conclude at 2:30pm.
Standards. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability: clear, consistent communication about academic obligations) and ACEN Standard 5 (clinical scheduling details must be accurate and consistent) are implicated. Two officials issuing different start times within four minutes, the evening before the start and immediately after a meeting convened to align everyone, reflects a coordination failure. Lead: HU-154. See HU-153.
Impact. The reporting student was left with two arrival times the night before clinical, affecting accommodation-related planning, including medication timing, dog sitter, and sleep schedule for narcolepsy; following the 6:45 instruction risked missing the 6:30 brief.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-154 (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Frazier's schedule otherwise respects the eight-hour and 4:30 PM limits; the documented issue is the conflicting start times.
HU-154b: The corrected start time was sent only to the reporting student, not reply-all, leaving the ADA office and other staff with the 6:45 start on record and the team's records unreconciled
| Severity | Medium | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Correction Not Sent Reply-All / Records Unreconciled | Date added | 2026-06-04 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Professor Troy Frazier FNP-BC / Dr. Rachel Powell | ||
Finding. Dr. Powell's 6:45 am email went to the full group, including Emilie Thompson, Danielle Laban, the ADA mailbox, Frazier, Dr. Prashad, and the national prelicensure clinical alias, but Frazier's differing 6:30 am time was sent only to the reporting student, leaving other staff and the ADA office with the earlier time on record.
Evidence. Email 1 recipients (Powell, 4:49 PM): the reporting student, Thompson, Laban, ADA, Frazier, cc Prashad and the national pre-clinical alias. Email 2 (Frazier, 4:53 PM): to the reporting student only. Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Emails June 4, 2026 (distribution lists).
Reported statement.
[Frazier, 4:53 PM, to the reporting student only] We will begin clinic at 6:30am.
Standards. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability and recordkeeping consistency) is implicated. A correction not shared with staff holding the original creates inconsistent institutional records. Lead: HU-154.
Impact. Because the correction was not sent reply-all, the ADA office and other staff may hold a different start time than the instructor, increasing the chance of further miscommunication about attendance and timing.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-154 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.
HU-170: Lead: Professor Heather Gregg blocked approval of the reporting student's clinical hour submissions for at least two weeks pending a preceptor agreement form that Dr. Rachel Powell later clarified was not required in the form Gregg demanded, Professor Frazier is the only individual who should be listed on the log; this is inconsistent with last term's waiver; preceptors are assigned the morning of each shift making a pre-signed list structurally impossible; and Dr. Gregg's communications were described by the reporting student as blaming him and disregarding the faculty member's circumstances; see HU-170a through HU-170d
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Lead / index for a split cluster (clinical hours blocked pending incorrect preceptor requirement; inconsistent policy across terms; structurally impossible same-day preceptor list requirement; faculty conduct concern) | Date added | 2026-06-15 |
| Owner | Professor Heather Gregg (Clinical Course Faculty) / Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National/Online) / Herzing Clinical Affairs | ||
Finding. This is a lead entry for a cluster of clinical documentation and policy-consistency issues arising from the NSG525 Clinical II course. On June 15, 2026, Dr. Heather Gregg, course professor, communicated via Canvas that she was not permitted to approve the reporting student's clinical hours until the required preceptor agreement form was uploaded and completed. The reporting student's email to Professor Troy Frazier, on-site clinical faculty of record in ELMS, and Dr. Rachel Powell, Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, documented that Gregg had been blocking hour submissions for at least the prior two weeks. Dr. Powell responded clarifying that Professor Frazier is the clinical faculty member on site and is the only individual who should be listed on the Clinical Hours Report Log, as he is the one verifying hours in ELMS. This directly contradicts how Gregg had communicated the requirement, a signed preceptor agreement listing individual nurses. The reporting student noted that last term the requirement had been waived by Rachel Powell, then clinical lead, for students who had on-site clinical faculty. The reporting student also noted that preceptors are typically assigned the morning of each clinical shift, making a comprehensive pre-signed list impossible to produce in advance. The reporting student additionally described Dr. Gregg's communications as implying he was being irresponsible, stating she did not care that the faculty member was traveling and had a lot going on, and as disrespectful. Tracked separately: HU-170a (clinical hours blocked for two-plus weeks pending an incorrectly applied requirement), HU-170b (inconsistent requirements between current and prior term), HU-170c (preceptors assigned same day, structurally impossible pre-condition), and HU-170d (faculty communication conduct concern).
Notes. Course: NSG525-7E Clinical II, 2262C16, confirmed from the Canvas dashboard. Clinical faculty of record in ELMS: Professor Troy Frazier (Adjunct Clinical Instructor). Course professor applying the requirement: Dr. Heather Gregg. Dr. Rachel Powell's email title: Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National (Online). The reporting student referenced a contact named Tiffany who may be able to provide the preceptor list; this person is not further identified in the evidence. Powell clarified Frazier should be the only individual listed on the log; the reporting student noted Frazier precepts him two days a week and was described by Gregg as traveling four hours away. Added 2026-06-15. Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Canvas message from Dr. Heather Gregg to the reporting student (Jun 15, 2026, 10:01 AM); email thread among the reporting student, Professor Troy Frazier, Dr. Heather Gregg, Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National/Online), Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Dr. Stephanie Black, Dr. Danielle Laban; June 15, 2026; provided by the reporting student. Parts: HU-170a, HU-170b, HU-170c, HU-170d. Cross-references: HU-133 (clinical placement fragmentation and inconsistent process), HU-134 (Student A clinical placement error), HU-135 (8-hour clinical accommodation, clinical scheduling at same site), HU-141 (Clinician Nexus/ELMS clinical documentation system issues).
HU-170a: Professor Heather Gregg blocked approval of the reporting student's clinical hour submissions for at least two weeks pending a preceptor agreement form; Dr. Rachel Powell later clarified that Professor Frazier, as the on-site clinical faculty member of record in ELMS, is the only individual who should be listed on the Clinical Hours Report Log
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Clinical Hour Approval Blocked Pending Incorrectly Applied Preceptor Requirement | Date added | 2026-06-15 |
| Owner | Professor Heather Gregg (Clinical Course Faculty) / Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance) | ||
Finding. Dr. Heather Gregg communicated via Canvas on June 15, 2026 that she was not permitted to approve the reporting student's clinical hours until the required preceptor agreement form was uploaded and completed. The reporting student's email to Frazier and Powell documented that Gregg had been blocking hour submissions for the prior two or more weeks, holding up clinical logs he had already submitted. Dr. Rachel Powell responded, clarifying that Professor Frazier, as the on-site clinical faculty member who verifies hours in ELMS, is the only individual who should be listed on the Clinical Hours Report Log. Powell's clarification is directly inconsistent with Gregg's stated requirement, which was for a preceptor agreement listing and signed by the nurses the reporting student works alongside, a different document from the faculty-signed log.
Evidence. Canvas message from Dr. Heather Gregg (Jun 15, 2026, 10:01 AM): "I am not permitted to approve these clinical hours until the required preceptor agreement form has been uploaded and completed." The reporting student's email: "She is holding up all of my clinical logs from this point (last two weeks) forward." Dr. Rachel Powell's email: "Professor Frazier should be the only individual listed on your Clinical Hours Report Log, as he is the individual verifying your clinical hours in ELMS." Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Canvas message from Dr. Heather Gregg to the reporting student (Jun 15, 2026, 10:01 AM); email thread among the reporting student, Professor Troy Frazier, Dr. Heather Gregg, Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National/Online), Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Dr. Stephanie Black, Dr. Danielle Laban; June 15, 2026; provided by the reporting student.
Reported statement.
[Gregg:] I am not permitted to approve these clinical hours until the required preceptor agreement form has been uploaded and completed. [Powell:] Professor Frazier should be the only individual listed on your Clinical Hours Report Log, as he is the individual verifying your clinical hours in ELMS.
Standards. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability, including consistent and accurate clinical-hour tracking), HLC Criterion 2.A (clear, fair, and consistently applied processes), and ACEN Standard 4 (clinical evaluation methodologies) are implicated. Blocking clinical hour approval for two or more weeks based on a requirement that the institutional Director of Clinical Placement later clarifies was not the correct requirement is a process-consistency and academic-progress concern. Lead: HU-170.
Impact. At least two weeks of clinical hours remained unlogged and unapproved while the dispute was pending, potentially affecting hour count, course standing, and progression.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-170 (lead). CONFIRMED from first-party Canvas message and email thread. Documented 2026-06-15.
HU-170b: The preceptor agreement requirement as applied by Professor Gregg this term is inconsistent with the practice last term, when Dr. Rachel Powell (then clinical lead) waived the preceptor agreement for students who had on-site clinical faculty supervising both the student and the preceptor
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Inconsistent Clinical Documentation Requirements Across Terms | Date added | 2026-06-15 |
| Owner | Professor Heather Gregg (Clinical Course Faculty) / Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance) / Herzing Clinical Affairs | ||
Finding. The reporting student states that last term, when he had on-site clinical faculty, Dr. Rachel Powell, now Director of Clinical Placement but then the clinical lead, waived the preceptor agreement requirement for students with faculty oversight, because the faculty member was supervising both the student and the preceptor. This term, Professor Gregg applied a different standard, requiring the preceptor agreement to be completed and uploaded before approving any clinical hours, even though Professor Frazier is again the on-site faculty of record. The inconsistency means a student who complied fully with last term's documented process is now being held to a different and more burdensome standard without documented notification of the change.
Evidence. The reporting student's email: "Last semester if we had a clinical faculty, this requirement was waived. I had @Powell, Rachel who is now the lead on the clinical team and she simply waived the preceptor agreement for those who had faculty since the faculty was overseeing the student and preceptor." Dr. Rachel Powell's clarification email confirming that faculty-level oversight, Frazier on ELMS, is the correct process. Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Canvas message from Dr. Heather Gregg to the reporting student (Jun 15, 2026, 10:01 AM); email thread among the reporting student, Professor Troy Frazier, Dr. Heather Gregg, Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National/Online), Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Dr. Stephanie Black, Dr. Danielle Laban; June 15, 2026; provided by the reporting student.
Reported statement.
Last semester if we had a clinical faculty, this requirement was waived. I had @Powell, Rachel who is now the lead on the clinical team and she simply waived the preceptor agreement for those who had faculty since the faculty was overseeing the student and preceptor.
Standards. HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, including clear and consistently applied policies for all students) and 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) are implicated. Applying a more stringent documentation requirement this term without documented policy change notification, when the same scenario was handled differently last term by the individual now responsible for clinical placement policy, is a policy-consistency and fair-process concern. Lead: HU-170.
Impact. The reporting student followed the process as applied last term and was penalized this term for doing the same thing, with no documented notice the requirement had changed.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-170 (lead). The reporting student describes this as trying to hit a moving post, different requirements than explained and applied in prior terms. CONFIRMED from first-party email. Documented 2026-06-15.
HU-170c: Clinical preceptors at the reporting student's facility are typically assigned the morning of each shift, making it structurally impossible to provide a comprehensive signed preceptor list in advance as a pre-condition for clinical hour approval
| Severity | Medium | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Structurally Impossible Pre-Condition for Clinical Hour Approval | Date added | 2026-06-15 |
| Owner | Professor Heather Gregg (Clinical Course Faculty) / Herzing Clinical Affairs | ||
Finding. The reporting student states that preceptors at his clinical facility are typically assigned the morning he starts each assignment, not in advance. Requiring a pre-signed preceptor agreement listing all preceptors before approving clinical hours therefore creates a requirement that cannot actually be met at the time of submission for any given shift, because the preceptor's identity is not known until that morning. Dr. Powell's clarification, that only the faculty member, Frazier, needs to be listed on the log, resolves this for the log itself, but the underlying design of requiring a pre-signed preceptor list is noted as impractical in the context of how clinical assignments are structured.
Evidence. The reporting student's email: "It's so unfortunate that the university is requiring us to get a list of all of my preceptors even though they're typically assigned the morning that I start the assignment. I'm not really sure how to proceed. I'm kind of at a loss for words." Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Canvas message from Dr. Heather Gregg to the reporting student (Jun 15, 2026, 10:01 AM); email thread among the reporting student, Professor Troy Frazier, Dr. Heather Gregg, Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National/Online), Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Dr. Stephanie Black, Dr. Danielle Laban; June 15, 2026; provided by the reporting student.
Reported statement.
It's so unfortunate that the university is requiring us to get a list of all of my preceptors even though they're typically assigned the morning that I start the assignment. I'm not really sure how to proceed. I'm kind of at a loss for words.
Standards. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability, including reasonable and workable clinical documentation requirements), HLC Criterion 2.A (fair process), and ACEN Standard 4 (clinical evaluation methodologies should reflect the realities of practice) are implicated. A documentation requirement that is structurally impossible to fulfill based on how clinical assignments are organized at the placement site is an administrative design concern. Lead: HU-170.
Impact. If the preceptor agreement list were strictly enforced as a blocking condition in the future, the reporting student would have no practical path to having his clinical hours approved, since the preceptor's identity is not known until the day of the shift.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-170 (lead). Powell's clarification resolves the immediate issue by directing that only Frazier be listed; the broader structural concern is noted for the record. Documented 2026-06-15.
HU-170d: The reporting student describes communications from Professor Heather Gregg as implying he was irresponsible, stating she did not care that the faculty member was traveling and had significant obligations, and as disrespectful, a faculty conduct and communication concern
| Severity | Medium | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Disrespectful Faculty Communication; Attribution of Blame to Student (faculty conduct concern) | Date added | 2026-06-15 |
| Owner | Professor Heather Gregg (Clinical Course Faculty) | ||
Finding. In his email to Powell, Frazier, and others, the reporting student describes communications from Professor Gregg that he found disrespectful and that attributed fault to him rather than to the university's changing policies. He states Gregg said or implied she did not care that the faculty member was traveling four hours away and had a lot going on during the week, given that Frazier precepts him only two days a week. He states she did not acknowledge the institutional role in the situation and instead placed the burden on the reporting student. He describes her email as very disrespectful. The Canvas message from Dr. Gregg in evidence (June 15, 10:01 AM) is itself professional in tone; the characterizations relate to a different Gregg communication that is described but not directly in evidence as a document.
Evidence. The reporting student's email: "She also said or implied at least that she didn't care that the faculty member was far away and had a lot going on during the week as he only precepts me two days a week that she was going to not approve this or wave it and now she's going to withhold approval of my clinical hours. ... I found her email to be very disrespectful towards me. I'm not the one who continues to have a moving post with regards to requirements for clinicals." Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Canvas message from Dr. Heather Gregg to the reporting student (Jun 15, 2026, 10:01 AM); email thread among the reporting student, Professor Troy Frazier, Dr. Heather Gregg, Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, National/Online), Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Dr. Stephanie Black, Dr. Danielle Laban; June 15, 2026; provided by the reporting student.
Reported statement.
I found her email to be very disrespectful towards me. I'm not the one who continues to have a moving post with regards to requirements for clinicals.
Standards. HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity in faculty-student interactions) and institutional professional conduct expectations are implicated. Communication that attributes fault to a student for institutional policy inconsistencies, and that disregards the practical constraints of the student's clinical placement arrangement, raises a faculty conduct and student-welfare concern. This is CONFIRMED that the reporting student made this characterization in writing; the underlying Gregg communications are described but not directly in the evidence provided. Lead: HU-170.
Impact. Faculty communications perceived as disrespectful and that misattribute responsibility may chill a student's willingness to raise legitimate concerns and add to the burden of navigating institutional processes.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-170 (lead). CONFIRMED at the level of the reporting student's documented characterization. The specific Gregg emails being described are referenced as attached to the reporting student's emails but not directly in the materials provided. Documented 2026-06-15.
HU-178: An unidentified, unsaved-contact cohort member in the Nursing '27 group chat reported that her clinical instructor was fired and all of her remaining scheduled clinical sessions to complete required medical surgical nursing hours were cancelled
| Severity | High | Status | POSSIBLE, secondhand and unverified as to the stated cause (termination) and the claim that all remaining clinical sessions were cancelled; the existence of cohort-wide concern and sympathetic responses is directly shown in the screenshot |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Clinical Instructor Termination Cancels Scheduled Clinical Sessions Needed to Complete Required Hours; Unverified Secondhand Cohort Report | Date added | 2026-07-17 |
| Owner | Nursing '27 cohort clinical leadership; Program Chair; Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance | ||
Finding. According to the tracker, in the Nursing '27 group chat, an unidentified cohort member, shown only as an unsaved contact ending 9923, wrote that her clinical instructor got fired and that all of her scheduled clinical sessions with that instructor to finish out her medical surgical nursing hours were cancelled. Several cohort members reacted with concern, including messages reading "WHAT" and "That's crazyyyy," along with distressed emoji reactions. A student identified in the chat as Student A responded with sympathy. A second cohort member, shown with the initials CB and identified in the chat as Student AB, separately reported the same post with a distressed emoji reaction, suggesting the concern was shared by more than one cohort member. A student identified as Student CT responded with encouragement, noting the cohort has three semesters remaining. No institutional communication, remediation plan, or makeup clinical scheduling was shown in the visible portion of the thread. This report has not been independently verified and the identity of the original poster is not established beyond an unsaved phone number; it is logged as a possible instance of a pattern already partly documented in this tracker, where an NSG 523 medical surgical nursing instructor and an NSG 525 Clinical II instructor both stepped away from the same cohort during the 2026 Summer C16 term. Unlike that earlier entry, this report specifically claims a termination rather than a voluntary step away, and specifically claims cancellation of clinical sessions needed to complete required hours rather than only a change in course coverage; whether this is a new development in the same underlying situation or a separate instance has not been confirmed and should be verified directly with the reporting student or with clinical leadership before this entry is treated as confirmed.
Evidence. Screenshot of the Nursing '27 iMessage group chat, provided by the reporting student. Message from an unsaved contact, [phone redacted]: a report that her clinical instructor was fired and her remaining med surg clinical sessions with that instructor were cancelled. Cohort responses include messages from unsaved contacts reading "WHAT" and "That's crazyyyy," a distressed emoji reaction, a message from Student A expressing sympathy, a separate distressed emoji reaction from a cohort member identified as Student AB (shown with initials CB), and an encouraging message from a cohort member identified as Student CT noting three semesters remain. Student: The reporting student is the documenting and observing student; the underlying report concerns an unidentified cohort member in the Nursing '27 group chat, identified in the chat only by an unsaved phone contact ending 9923. Source Group: Screenshot of the Nursing '27 iMessage group chat, message from an unsaved contact ([phone redacted]), posted the day before the screenshot was captured at 7:37 PM, with cohort responses through the following afternoon; provided by the reporting student.
Reported statement. The unidentified cohort member, an anonymous handle, paraphrased that her clinical instructor had been fired and that all of her remaining scheduled clinical sessions to finish her med-surg hours were cancelled.
Standards. The Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026, Clinical Placement and Clinical Onboarding sections, describes clinical rotations as scheduled by the institution and subject to facility and program requirements, without a stated contingency for abrupt loss of an assigned instructor mid-term. Faculty sufficiency and continuity are addressed by accreditation standards requiring sufficient qualified faculty to achieve program outcomes and to maintain continuity of instruction (Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing, 2023; confirm exact standard number against the current ACEN Standards and Criteria). HLC Criterion 3.C (the institution has the faculty and staff needed for effective, high-quality programs) and HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity in communications) are also potentially relevant if clinical hours are lost without a timely institutional remediation plan. This comparison is preliminary and should be revisited once the underlying facts are confirmed.
Impact. If accurate, the loss of scheduled clinical sessions needed to complete required medical surgical nursing hours could delay a student's progression or graduation, consistent with the hours shortfall pattern already documented elsewhere in this tracker for other clinical placement disruptions. Because the report is secondhand and the reporter is unidentified beyond a phone number, this risk is not yet established as fact and should be verified before being relied upon for any formal filing.
Notes. The reporting student's identity is not established beyond an unsaved phone number ending 9923; the claim that the instructor was fired, as opposed to resigning or stepping away, is unverified; and whether this report describes a new development in the previously documented NSG 523 or NSG 525 staffing situation, or a separate instance involving a different student or course, has not been confirmed. Recommend following up directly with the reporting student, if identity can be established, and with clinical leadership, before elevating this entry to CONFIRMED. Cross-references: the earlier tracker entry documenting the NSG 523 medical surgical nursing instructor and NSG 525 Clinical II instructor both stepping away from the same Nursing '27 cohort during 2026 Summer C16, and the earlier tracker entry documenting a different clinical course adjunct professor's resignation without institutional notice, are both potentially related patterns and should be compared directly against this report once the reporting student's identity and the specific facts are confirmed.
HU-181: A newly assigned Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator sent a welcome email to students outside her assigned population and retracted it the same day, apologizing for the distribution error
| Severity | Low | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Misdirected Mass Email Regarding Clinical Placement Coordinator Assignment; Self-Corrected Distribution List Error | Date added | 2026-07-17 |
| Owner | Heather Klanderman (Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator, IL Online MSNDE) | ||
Finding. Heather Klanderman introduced herself as the new Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator for the MSN-DE program, stating she was reviewing Fall clinical site approvals and rostering and reminding students to keep Complio compliance requirements current. A second email from the same sender followed the same day, stating the prior message had been sent in error, that she is responsible for supporting Illinois students specifically, and that the message had been inadvertently distributed to students outside her assigned population. She apologized for any confusion or added stress and directed recipients to continue working with their own assigned Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator. The retraction indicates the reporting student received a welcome message from a coordinator who was not in fact assigned to his population, and does not identify who his correct assigned coordinator is. This is a minor, self-corrected distribution error, but it adds to an already documented pattern in this tracker of unclear or shifting points of contact within the clinical placement structure, including multiple named regional coordinators and inconsistent contact routing for disability and placement matters.
Evidence. Email, Heather Klanderman to nursing students, subject "Welcome from Your New Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator," July 2, 2026, 9:00 AM: self-introduction as the new IL Online MSNDE Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator, review of Fall clinical site approvals and rostering, and a reminder to keep Complio compliance current. Email, Heather Klanderman to the same recipients, same day: a statement that the prior message was sent in error, that she supports Illinois students specifically, and that it was inadvertently distributed to students outside her assigned population, with an apology and a direction to continue working with each student's own assigned coordinator. Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Email, Heather Klanderman (Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator, IL Online MSNDE) to nursing students, subject Welcome from Your New Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator, Thu Jul 2, 2026, 9:00 AM; followed by a retraction email from the same sender the same day; provided by the reporting student.
Reported statement.
I recently joined the Clinical Placement team and am responsible for supporting Illinois (IL) students. Unfortunately, the message was inadvertently distributed to students outside of my assigned population.
Standards. HLC Criterion 2.A (institutional integrity, including clear and accurate communications to students) is implicated. This is a minor operational item rather than a violation; it is logged primarily as pattern evidence of unclear points of contact within the clinical placement structure, consistent with the regional coordinator confusion already documented elsewhere in this tracker and the earlier documented routing of disability-related contact through a general admissions address.
Impact. Limited direct impact, since the error was corrected the same day with an apology. The episode does not by itself establish who the reporting student's correct assigned Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator is, which remains useful to confirm given the broader pattern of shifting or unclear regional coordinator assignments already documented in this tracker.
Notes. Recommend confirming, in writing, the name and contact information of the reporting student's actual assigned Clinical Placement and Compliance Coordinator, since the retraction email establishes that Heather Klanderman is not that person for his population. Cross-references: the earlier tracker entries documenting multiple named regional clinical placement coordinators and a regional model replacing a prior centralized model, and the earlier tracker entry documenting disability services contact routed through a general admissions address, both reflect the same underlying pattern of unclear points of contact within clinical placement and disability support functions.
HU-190: For the Fall 2026 family nursing clinical rotation, a Herzing clinical coordinator directed a student to secure her own placement through her employer rather than through the program, and the student reported that placement communication had been thin and asked the program to secure a compliant placement
| Severity | High | Status | POSSIBLE. This is a third party report concerning another student, drawn from screenshots rather than from the underlying email records. The content of the two quoted messages is legible and is treated as reliably captured, but the dates, the full recipient list, whether the program subsequently secured a placement, and Student A's authorization for this matter to be documented in this tracker have not been confirmed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Placement Responsibility Shifted to Student; Employer Based Placement Proposed in Lieu of Program Secured Placement; Placement Communication Gap | Date added | 2026-08-05 |
| Owner | Starr Williams-Headen (Clinical Coordinator) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance) | ||
Finding. According to the tracker, this is a third party report concerning Student A, drawn from screenshots rather than from the underlying email records. In an email thread titled "Fall 2026 Clinical Schedule and Planning," Starr Williams-Headen wrote to Student A that at this point in her program she is able to work directly with a preceptor to complete her clinical hours, asked whether she would be interested in doing that with her current employer if possible, and offered that if so, Student A should provide her employer information so that Herzing could assist in pursuing a clinical rotation with them. Student A replied declining the employer based route for two stated reasons. First, she stated that her role is in acute geriatric home based urgent response care, so the setting is limited to older adults and would not provide the lifespan and population breadth that the family nursing clinical requires. Second, she stated that an employer based placement only works if coordination between the program and the site is timely and reliable, that communication on placement had been thin on her end, and that she was not comfortable putting her working relationship with her employer on the line for an arrangement she could not count on to run smoothly. She closed by stating she was counting on the program to secure a placement meeting the course requirements, and asked for the expected timeline and what the program needed from her to keep it moving. The exchange documents an instance in which the institution proposed that the student source her own clinical placement through her employer, and in which the student identified both a curricular mismatch and a program communication reliability concern as reasons that route was not viable. It also documents that, as of her reply, the student did not have a confirmed program secured placement for the Fall 2026 family nursing rotation. The content of the two quoted messages is legible and is treated as reliably captured, but the dates, the full recipient list, whether the program subsequently secured a placement, and Student A's authorization for this matter to be documented in this tracker have not been confirmed.
Evidence. Screenshot one: Starr Williams-Headen to Student A, subject "Fall 2026 Clinical Schedule and Planning," timestamped 1:59 PM, stating that at this point in her program the student is able to work directly with a preceptor to complete her clinical hours, asking whether she would be interested in doing so with her current employer, and requesting employer information so Herzing could assist in pursuing a rotation. Screenshot two: Student A's reply in the same thread, stating that her acute geriatric home based urgent response role would not provide the lifespan and population breadth the family nursing clinical requires, that placement communication had been thin on her end, that she was unwilling to risk her employment relationship on an arrangement she could not rely on, that she was counting on the program to secure a compliant placement, and asking for the expected timeline and what the program needed from her. Student: Student A is the reporting student and the subject of this entry. The reporting student is the documenting student who provided the screenshots to this tracker; he is not a party to the exchange. Source Group: Two screenshots of an Outlook email thread titled Fall 2026 Clinical Schedule and Planning, provided by the reporting student. First screenshot: message from Starr Williams-Headen to Student A, copied to recipients shown only as Ferra, Jessica, Hill, and Jeff, timestamped 1:59 PM, date not visible in the capture. Second screenshot: Student A's reply to Starr Williams-Headen, date and time not visible in the capture beyond a device clock reading 6:01. Neither screenshot shows the full recipient list, message dates, or any subsequent reply.
Reported statement.
[Starr Williams-Headen:] At this point in your program, you are able to work directly with a preceptor to complete your clinical hours. Would this be something you would be interested in doing with your current employer if possible?
Student A, a student pseudonym, replied that her acute geriatric home based urgent response role would not provide the lifespan and population breadth the family nursing clinical requires, that communication on placement had been thin on her end, that she was not comfortable putting her employer relationship at risk for an arrangement she could not count on, and that she was counting on the program to secure a compliant placement.
Standards. Compare against the Herzing University catalog, catoid 80, and the Prelicensure Student Handbook provisions describing how clinical placements are arranged, and against any representations made to students at enrollment regarding whether the institution secures clinical placements. HLC Criterion 3.D (student support) and 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) are potentially relevant if required clinical experiences are in practice sourced by students rather than by the institution. Programmatic nursing accreditation standards regarding adequacy of clinical learning resources and clinical site sufficiency are also potentially engaged; the applicable standard number should be confirmed against the current standards of the accreditor for this specific program before being cited in any filing. This entry is logged as a discrepancy and a pattern data point, not as an asserted finding that Herzing failed to meet any standard, and it does not establish that a placement was ultimately unavailable.
Impact. If required clinical placements are in practice sourced through students' own employers, students without a clinically suitable employer, or whose employer setting does not match the course population requirements, face a barrier to progression that is unrelated to academic performance. Student A additionally identified a reliability concern about program to site coordination that made her unwilling to expose her employment relationship to the arrangement. The entry also documents a student who, at the time of writing, lacked a confirmed placement for a Fall 2026 required rotation.
Notes. The screenshots do not show message dates, the full recipient list, or any subsequent reply, so the timeline and outcome are unestablished. Recommend obtaining the underlying email records with headers if this entry is to be relied upon in any filing. Because this concerns another student's individual circumstances, confirm that Student A is aware her correspondence is being documented in this tracker and consents to its use in any external filing, and consider whether her name should be redacted in filings where her individual situation is offered only as pattern evidence. This entry is most useful as corroboration that the student sourced placement pattern previously documented for graduate NP students also appears in the Fall 2026 family nursing rotation, which strengthens it as systemic rather than program specific evidence for an accreditor complaint. Cross-reference: the existing HU-081 cluster documenting the Clinical Placement Pledge and reports that students across multiple states are responsible for sourcing their own preceptors; the existing HU-133 cluster documenting Student A's incorrect Group K rotation assignment and the related communication failures involving Starr Williams-Headen; the existing HU-144 entry documenting the Group K rotation hours reduction reported by Student A and Student Q; the earlier entry recording Student H's account that family nursing OB and pediatrics hours were student sourced and observation only.
HU-190a: Student A's Fall 2026 planning email to Starr Williams-Headen requesting schedule stability, level appropriate clinical placement, and advance notice to clinical sites, reporting that Summer 2026 involved repeated last minute changes and that instructors were unaware of her arrival until the day she appeared
| Severity | High | Status | POSSIBLE. Third party account relayed through a second channel. The text is treated as accurately relayed, but the message date, recipients, and any response from Starr Williams-Headen are unestablished, and the underlying email record has not been reviewed. Student A's authorization for this correspondence to be documented in this tracker has not been confirmed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Reported Clinical Schedule Instability; Level Inappropriate Clinical Placement; Clinical Site Not Notified of Student Assignment in Advance | Date added | 2026-08-05 |
| Owner | Starr Williams-Headen (Clinical Coordinator) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance) | ||
Finding. The reporter states that, following the Fall 2026 Intensive registration announcement, Student A wrote to Starr Williams-Headen raising four matters. First, she asked when Fall 2026 clinical schedules and placements would be finalized, referencing the challenges experienced during Summer 2026 with multiple schedule changes, and asked that the repeated last minute changes that occurred that summer be avoided, stating that those unexpected adjustments created significant challenges for planning and that she needed to coordinate her intensive, clinical schedule, work obligations, and childcare well in advance. Second, she requested placement in a clinical environment aligned with her current level of education, reporting that during a recent clinical experience she was paired with Fundamentals students whose clinical objectives were different from hers, and that the experience focused largely on therapeutic communication, which limited opportunities to practice the more advanced nursing skills expected at her stage of the program. Third, she asked that the clinical site and assigned clinical instructors be notified of her placement before her arrival, reporting that on previous rotations the instructors were unaware she was coming until the day she arrived, which she described as creating an awkward situation for everyone involved. Fourth, she asked again when students could expect Fall clinical schedules and placements to be available. This entry corroborates and extends the placement communication concern Student A raised in HU-190, and supplies three specific operational failures she attributes to prior rotations: schedule instability, mismatch between placement level and student progression, and clinical sites not being informed of an assigned student in advance. This is a third party account relayed through a second channel; the message date, recipients, and any response from Starr Williams-Headen are unestablished, and the underlying email record has not been reviewed, nor has Student A's authorization for this correspondence to be documented in this tracker.
Evidence. Text of Student A's email to Starr Williams-Headen as relayed by Student A to the reporting student by text message and provided by him to this tracker: a request for a finalized Fall 2026 clinical schedule and placement timeline; a reference to multiple Summer 2026 schedule changes and a request to avoid repeated last minute changes; a statement of the need to coordinate her intensive, clinical schedule, work obligations, and childcare in advance; a report of being paired with Fundamentals students during a recent clinical experience with an emphasis on therapeutic communication that limited advanced skill practice; a request for a placement aligned with her level of education; a report that on previous rotations clinical instructors were unaware of her arrival until the day she arrived; and a request that sites and instructors be notified in advance. Student: Student A is the author and subject of this entry. The reporting student is the documenting student; he received the text of this email from Student A by text message and provided it to this tracker. He is not a party to the email. Source Group: Text of an email from Student A to Starr Williams-Headen, relayed to the reporting student by text message and provided by him to this tracker. The email date, time, exact subject line, and full recipient list are not established, and the message was received as relayed text rather than as an email record with headers.
Reported statement. Student A, a student pseudonym, paraphrased her requests: avoid the repeated last minute schedule changes of Summer 2026 given the need to coordinate her intensive, clinical schedule, work, and childcare in advance; provide a placement matching her level of education rather than pairing her with Fundamentals students focused on therapeutic communication; and ensure clinical sites and instructors are notified of her arrival in advance, since on previous rotations instructors did not know she was coming until the day she arrived.
Standards. Compare against the Herzing University catalog, catoid 80, and the Prelicensure Student Handbook provisions governing clinical scheduling, placement assignment, and clinical site coordination. HLC Criterion 3.D (student support) and 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability) are potentially relevant. Programmatic nursing accreditation standards regarding clinical learning experiences appropriate to the level of the curriculum and adequacy of clinical site coordination are also potentially engaged; the applicable standard number should be confirmed against the current standards of the accreditor for this specific program before being cited in any filing. The report that a clinical site and its instructors were not informed of an assigned student until the student arrived is the most concrete operational failure described here and is the item most readily verifiable against Herzing's own placement records. This entry is logged as a reported concern and a pattern data point, not as an asserted finding.
Impact. If accurate, three distinct risks are described. Schedule instability impairs students' ability to coordinate required intensives, employment, and dependent care, which affects progression for reasons unrelated to academic performance. Placement of an advanced student alongside Fundamentals students, with instruction focused on therapeutic communication, may not deliver the clinical competencies the student's stage of the curriculum requires, which bears on the adequacy of clinical learning experiences. A clinical site and instructors who are unaware a student is arriving cannot have prepared a supervised learning assignment, which raises both an educational quality and a patient care supervision concern.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-190. The relayed text does not establish the email's date, recipients, or whether Starr Williams-Headen responded. Recommend obtaining the underlying email with headers, and Starr Williams-Headen's reply if one exists, before relying on this entry in any filing. Because this documents another student's individual circumstances and was relayed through a second channel, confirm that Student A consents to its documentation and to any external use, and consider redacting her name where her situation is offered only as pattern evidence. The report that clinical instructors were unaware of an assigned student until arrival is independently verifiable against Herzing's placement notification records and is the item most worth pursuing. Cross-reference: HU-190 (lead issue, the Fall 2026 employer based preceptor proposal and Student A's reply); the existing HU-133 cluster documenting Student A's incorrect Group K rotation assignment, missing facility and supervisor details, and onboarding failures; the existing HU-144 entry documenting the Group K rotation hours reduction reported by Student A and Student Q; the existing HU-081 cluster on student sourced placements; and the existing entries documenting short notice clinical scheduling affecting the reporting student.
HU-191: The reporting student is recorded as one clinical hour short for NSG525 Clinical II, and his clinical instructor told him verbally on the last clinical day that he cleared the shortfall with Dr. Rachel Powell and that it would not be a problem, but no written confirmation from Dr. Powell or Herzing exists
| Severity | Medium | Status | POSSIBLE as to whether the shortfall has in fact been cleared with Dr. Powell and will not affect the reporting student's standing; CONFIRMED only as to the fact that the instructor made this verbal statement to the reporting student and that the reporting student is recorded as one hour short, both of which rest on the reporting student's own account since no written record exists |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Unwritten Verbal Assurance of Compliance from Faculty, No Institutional Confirmation of Record | Date added | 2026-08-05 |
| Owner | The reporting student's NSG525 Clinical II clinical instructor (name to be confirmed); Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance) | ||
Finding. According to the tracker, the reporting student is recorded as being one clinical hour short of the total required for NSG525 Clinical II. On his last clinical day, his clinical instructor told him verbally that the instructor had cleared the shortfall with Dr. Rachel Powell, Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance, and that it would not be a problem. No email, Canvas message, or other written communication documents either the instructor's outreach to Dr. Powell or any confirmation from Dr. Powell that the shortfall is excused or otherwise resolved. This entry is added against the backdrop of an August 3, 2026 Canvas notice for the same course instructing students to confirm their logged hours include both live clinical and V-Sim simulation hours, and the broader pattern already documented in this tracker of clinical hour miscounts, disputed hour requirements, and unwritten assurances from clinical placement staff in other students' cases. The claim that the instructor's outreach and Dr. Powell's confirmation occurred rests entirely on the reporting student's own account, since no written record exists.
Evidence. The reporting student's own account of the clinical instructor's verbal statement on his last clinical day. Canvas notification, "Important Notice: Clinical Hours, Clinical II (NSG525-7E), 2026 Summer C16," sent August 3, 2026, instructing students to review their clinical hour log for both live and V-Sim hours to successfully complete the course. No corroborating written communication from the instructor or from Dr. Powell has been located or produced. Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Verbal statement made to the reporting student by his NSG525 Clinical II clinical instructor on his last clinical day, reported by the reporting student; Canvas notification, Important Notice: Clinical Hours, Clinical II (NSG525-7E), 2026 Summer C16, August 3, 2026, 16:54 UTC, instructing students to review their clinical hour log and ensure it includes both live clinical hours and simulation (V-Sim) hours; no email, message, or other written record of the instructor's statement or of any confirmation from Dr. Rachel Powell exists as of the date this entry was added.
Reported statement.
He cleared it with Rachel Powell and it would not be a problem.
Standards. Compare against the Herzing University catalog, catoid 80, and the Prelicensure Student Handbook provisions governing required clinical hours and any procedure for waiving or excusing a shortfall. HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity in institutional decision making and record keeping) and 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability, including reliable internal communication supporting accurate academic records) are potentially relevant, particularly given the pattern already documented in this tracker of undocumented grade and hour related decisions, including the unexplained NSG521 grade change addressed in HU-159. An unwritten verbal assurance from a clinical instructor, even if made in good faith, does not by itself constitute an institutional record that the requirement has been satisfied or waived, and leaves the reporting student without documentation if the matter is later disputed or if his account is later graded, audited, or reviewed for licensure eligibility purposes.
Impact. If the shortfall is not in fact resolved in Herzing's own records, the reporting student risks a last minute discovery of a clinical hour deficiency with no documentation to support the instructor's assurance that it had been cleared. Clinical hour totals bear directly on course completion and, ultimately, on licensure eligibility, so an undocumented one hour gap is a small number with a disproportionately large potential consequence if it surfaces later without support.
Notes. Recommend that the reporting student request written confirmation from Dr. Rachel Powell, in his own name, that the one hour shortfall has been reviewed and will not affect his grade, progression, or licensure eligibility documentation, and that he retain that confirmation regardless of the instructor's verbal assurance. The clinical instructor's name should be added to this entry once confirmed. This entry should be reclassified from POSSIBLE to CONFIRMED once written confirmation is obtained, or escalated if no such confirmation is provided. Cross-reference: HU-159 (undocumented NSG521 grade change and the same underlying concern about decisions made without a written record), the existing HU-135 cluster documenting 8 hour clinical shift accommodation and hour count disputes in NSG525 Clinical II, HU-190 and HU-190a (Fall 2026 clinical placement and scheduling concerns, same course area), and the general pattern in this tracker of students receiving verbal or informal assurances from clinical placement staff that are not later confirmed in writing.
HU-196: The reporting student proactively flagged a nurse strike at his clinical site, Ascension Via Christi, and Dr. Rachel Powell confirmed the same morning that contingency staffing was already arranged and his rotation would not be affected
| Severity | Low | Status | CONFIRMED and resolved within the same day |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Proactively Flagged External Risk to Clinical Placement, Resolved Same Day | Date added | 2026-08-11 |
| Owner | Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance) | ||
Finding. On July 7, 2026, the reporting student proactively notified Herzing's national prelicensure clinical staff that nurses at his clinical site, Ascension Via Christi in Wichita, were engaged in a one day strike, and that contingency replacement staff, unfamiliar with the clinical setting, would likely be filling in. He shared several news links documenting the strike and suggested the university confirm there would be no disruption to that week's clinicals. Dr. Rachel Powell responded the same morning that Herzing's team had already been in contact with the site and that his rotation would not be affected.
Evidence. Email, the reporting student, July 7, 2026, subject "FLAG FOR YOU ALL," with linked news coverage of the Ascension Via Christi nurse strike. Email, Dr. Rachel Powell, same date: confirmation that the clinical site had already been contacted and that the reporting student's rotation would not be affected. Student: The reporting student. Source Group: Email, the reporting student to Dr. Rachel Powell, the national prelicensure clinical mailbox, cc Troy Frazier and Dr. Raywattie Prashad, subject FLAG FOR YOU ALL, July 7, 2026, and Dr. Powell's same day reply.
Reported statement.
Our team has already been in contact with the clinical site, and your clinical rotations will not be affected by this ongoing walkout.
Standards. Not independently implicated; logged for completeness of the clinical placement communication record rather than as a compliance concern.
Impact. None realized. This entry documents a risk proactively identified by the student and promptly addressed by Herzing staff, and is retained as an example of the clinical placement office responding effectively when given advance notice.
Notes. No further action needed. Logged for completeness only. Cross-reference: general clinical placement communication entries in this tracker, for contrast with instances where advance notice was not given or was not acted upon.