Herzing Issues: Clinical Intensives and Simulation

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 Intensives and Simulation collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern clinical hour structure, on-site nursing intensives, and simulation-based clinical activities. 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 gathers thirteen tracker entries dated between April 30, 2026 and July 26, 2026. Six are rated Medium severity (HU-009, HU-039, HU-040, HU-079, HU-104, HU-183) and seven are rated High (HU-084, HU-108, HU-160, HU-165, HU-165a, HU-165b, HU-165c). Eight records carry a CONFIRMED status, one carries a CONFIRMED status with sub-points marked for verification (HU-160), and the four-part cluster beginning at HU-165 carries a POSSIBLE status because it rests on a single unverified account.

The entries split into two clusters. The first concerns clinical hour design and documentation: a handbook policy that labels early departure from clinical as patient abandonment (HU-009), a 135-hour requirement that does not divide evenly into 12-hour shifts (HU-079), OB/Peds observation hours completed at a public library (HU-084), VSIM scheduling that conflicts with full-time employment (HU-104), a mid-program 50 percent cut to on-site Clinical III hours (HU-108), and an inconsistency between two clinical courses over whether a preceptor signature or CORE ELMS approval satisfies the hours-log requirement (HU-160). The second concerns the on-site intensives themselves: late clearance emails issued after students had already booked non-refundable travel (HU-039), a dispute over whether a staff stamp on a skills validation form counted as a valid signature (HU-040), a reported scheduling and resource failure at a Nashville intensive that left two validations uncompleted, denied requests to finish them, and a resulting course failure (HU-165, HU-165a, HU-165b, HU-165c), and a registration window for Fall 2026 Intensive II that opened before students knew their clinical schedules or the Nashville session dates (HU-183).

Recurring owners across the cluster are the Program Chair, the Clinical Coordinator or Clinical Director, and the Intensive Coordinator, with the Dean of Prelicensure Nursing and Academic Affairs named in the more escalated entries. The pattern that runs through the set is a program design and communication gap between the units that control clinical hours, intensive scheduling, and documentation standards, producing outcomes that fall on students in the form of unplanned travel expense, disputed documentation, lost employment, or a course failure traceable to the program's own scheduling structure rather than to student performance.

Issues

HU-009: Handbook labels unlicensed nursing students leaving clinical early as 'patient abandonment'

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Policy Language Concern	Date added	2026-04-30
Owner	School of Nursing / Legal / Academic Affairs

Finding. Per the tracker's evidence, the handbook labels unlicensed nursing students who leave a clinical site early, without faculty approval, as committing patient abandonment, a characterization that results in a failure of the course.

Evidence. Handbook p.16: "Leaving a clinical site early, without faculty approval, is considered patient abandonment. This will result in a failure of the course."

Reported statement.

Leaving a clinical site early, without faculty approval, is considered patient abandonment. This will result in a failure of the course.

Standards. Patient abandonment is a licensure standard under state nurse practice acts, and it applies to licensed RNs, not unlicensed nursing students. NCSBN standards distinguish patient abandonment from student policy violations. Mischaracterizing the conduct may mislead students about their legal exposure.

Impact. Students may believe they face licensure-threatening patient abandonment charges rather than an attendance policy violation. Language is inaccurate and potentially coercive.

Notes. This is a policy language issue with implications for all enrolled students.

HU-039: Intensive clearance emails issued only 2-3 days before start of intensive sessions, after virtually all students had already purchased non-refundable flights and hotels

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Process Gap / Student Financial Risk	Date added	2026-05-04
Owner	Program Chair / Intensive Coordinator

Finding. Per the tracker's evidence, intensive clearance emails were issued only two to three days before the start of intensive sessions, after virtually all students had already purchased non-refundable flights and hotels.

Evidence. MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (February 27-28, 2026): clearance emails went out the Friday or Saturday before the Tuesday start of intensives. Multiple students had booked flights and hotels weeks in advance, with costs reported ranging from $600 to $900 or more.

Reported statement. Student E stated that giving clearance three days before the intensive made no sense, since students had already paid for everything, and that a denial at that point should mean a full refund of the roughly $900 already spent.

Standards. Herzing University Mission: "educate, support, and empower all students for success." ACEN Standard 5. Where institutional processes require students to incur significant travel expenses before clearance is confirmed, the institution bears responsibility for designing a process that minimizes financial risk to students.

Impact. Students incurred non-refundable travel expenses of $600 to $900 or more before receiving clearance confirmation. A denial at that stage would result in complete financial loss.

Notes. The university did provide a mileage stipend for some students placed at clinical sites more than 100 miles away, referenced in HU-024. The same principle applies to intensives.

HU-040: Students who had intensive skills validation forms stamped by intensive program staff were subsequently told the stamp did not constitute a valid signature

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Process Gap / Documentation Dispute	Date added	2026-05-04
Owner	Intensive Coordinator / Program Chair

Finding. Per the tracker's evidence, students who had intensive skills validation forms stamped by intensive program staff were subsequently told the stamp did not constitute a valid signature.

Evidence. MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (April 16, 2026): Student AI reported receiving a communication questioning whether her intensive validation form was properly signed, despite a stamp having been applied by intensive staff. Student J and other students confirmed all forms received the same institutional stamp.

Reported statement. Student AI described the same problem with the form, called the outcome ridiculous given that every proctor used the identical stamp, and questioned how the school could then say the stamp does not count.

Standards. ACEN Standard 5: clinical simulation activities must be properly documented. Handbook p.25, Simulation and Skills Lab Standards. If the intensive program issues a stamp as an official form of documentation, that stamp constitutes institutional verification.

Impact. Students who completed intensive requirements in good faith and received institutional stamps as verification now face potential course completion challenges.

Notes. The intensive coordinator had previously told students to "not upload" intensive skills validation forms and that "more information will be forthcoming." Absence of clear submission guidance combined with the stamp-versus-signature dispute reflects a broader process gap.

HU-079: Clinical hour requirement of 135 hours is not divisible by standard 12-hour nursing shifts; institutional policy requires students to work an additional full 12-hour shift to capture the remaining 3 hours

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Clinical Hour Structure / Inefficient Scheduling	Date added	2026-05-05
Owner	Program Chair / Clinical Coordinator

Finding. Per the tracker's evidence, the 135-hour clinical requirement for Clinical III and IV is not evenly divisible by 12, yielding eleven shifts of 12 hours plus 3 remaining hours. Institutional policy reportedly does not allow students to work less than a preceptor's full scheduled shift, so students must complete an additional full 12-hour shift to capture those 3 hours, working 12 times 12, or 144 hours, to meet a 135-hour requirement, 9 hours of unpaid, unaccredited overage caused by institutional scheduling design.

Evidence. Facebook comment by Student CB (Oct 20, 2024), from the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export, Dec 2022 to May 2026, Topical/Keyword Review, Volume 6.

Reported statement. Student CB stated that 135 hours does not divide evenly by 12, that the extra 3 hours force another 12-hour shift because the school does not allow shifts shorter than a preceptor's scheduled shift of normally 8 to 12 hours, and called it pathetic that the school could not make the requirement divisible by common nursing shift lengths.

Standards. ACEN Standard 5: clinical workload must be reasonable and aligned with credit hour definitions. 34 CFR 600.2 (credit hour): clinical hours must reflect a reasonable approximation of work expected per unit of credit; requiring a full 12-hour shift to capture 3 additional hours represents unjustified excess workload. Common nursing education practice structures clinical hour requirements to align with standard shift lengths of 8 or 12 hours to avoid this kind of inefficient remainder.

Impact. Students traveling significant distances for clinical (HU-024, HU-049) bear additional unnecessary travel and lodging costs to capture an extra full 12-hour shift for only 3 hours of credit. Students with documented disabilities (HU-024, HU-025) face additional fatigue exposure. The institutional rigidity of not allowing shifts shorter than the preceptor's scheduled shift is itself questionable, since the institution sets the requirements and could allow shorter make-up shifts for the residual hours. The "pathetic" characterization reflects student frustration with unnecessary institutional inflexibility.

Notes. Verification: review of clinical syllabi for hour structure, and the institutional policy on minimum shift length. A simple structural fix, requiring 132 or 144 hours, both divisible by 12, would resolve the issue. The persistence of 135 hours suggests no institutional review of this design despite student complaints. Cross-reference: HU-032, HU-033 for related clinical hour total inconsistencies.

HU-084: OB/Pediatric clinical observation hours fulfilled at public library children's section; institutional validation of pedagogically inadequate 'clinical experience'

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Clinical Hour Quality / Adequacy	Date added	2026-05-05
Owner	Clinical Coordinator / Program Chair

Finding. Per the tracker's evidence, OB/Pediatrics observation hours required under the Family Nursing course were fulfilled by a student volunteering in the children's section of a public library, and the hours counted toward the total clinical requirement despite having no clinical educational value for obstetric or pediatric nursing care.

Evidence. Student H (Dec 12, 2024), from the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export, Dec 2022 to May 2026, Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review of 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, and 14,112 comments across 8 passes, Volume 7.

Reported statement. Student H described the Family Nursing OB/Peds hours as self-arranged observation only, called the arrangement a bit of a joke, and said her OB/Peds hours amounted to volunteering in the kids section of a library.

Standards. ACEN Standard 4: clinical learning experiences must provide meaningful exposure to patient populations relevant to the course objectives. NCSBN Guidelines for Prelicensure Nursing Programs: clinical hours must expose students to appropriate patient care scenarios. OB/Pediatrics clinical hours are designed to provide supervised exposure to maternal-newborn and pediatric patients in clinical settings, not to children in a public library. Counting library volunteering as OB/Peds clinical hours misrepresents the nature of students' clinical preparation to state boards of nursing, which rely on institutional attestations of clinical hours.

Impact. Students graduating with OB/Peds clinical hours fulfilled by library volunteering have not received the clinical exposure those hours represent. If state boards of nursing require specific clinical hours in OB/Peds settings and those hours were fulfilled by library volunteering, students may not meet licensure requirements (see HU-085 Alabama BON enforcement, HU-070 VA BON hours issue). The requirement that students find their own hours also shifts the institutional obligation for clinical placement to the student, a burden-shift documented across multiple issues (HU-072, HU-081).

Notes. Students found their own OB/Peds observation hours in whatever settings they could access, including libraries, schools, and community programs. The institution accepted these hours without clinical educational value review. Cross-reference: HU-080 (mid-rotation clinical requirement changes), HU-070 (VA BON direct-care hours), HU-085 (Alabama BON enforcement on virtual hours).

HU-104: VSIM virtual clinical sessions scheduled during business hours on weekdays; not all available on weekends; 50 hours of required VSIM hours incompatible with full-time employment the program markets itself to

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Schedule Incompatibility / Marketed Flexibility Misrepresentation	Date added	2026-05-05
Owner	Clinical Coordinator / Program Chair

Finding. Per the tracker's evidence, the MSN-DE program is marketed as compatible with full-time employment, but required VSIM virtual simulation sessions, totaling approximately 50 hours per clinical semester, are not all available on evenings or weekends, and students have consistently used PTO or altered their employment to attend them.

Evidence. Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export, Dec 2022 to May 2026, Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review of 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, and 14,112 comments across 8 passes, Volume 7, including statements dated October 26, 2025 through February 16, 2026, among them Anonymous member 840's statement on cohort clinical hour totals and an anonymous member's statement about needing to finish the program before being able to leave a job.

Reported statement. Student B said VSIM sessions had no set day and had fallen on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays throughout the program. Student BG said the 50 hours of VSIM cannot all be done on weekends. Anonymous member 104 said 40 hours of annual PTO would not be enough and that leaving a corporate job for a Tech/CNA role, despite the pay cut, was necessary for schedule flexibility. Student BF said quitting full-time Monday-through-Friday work and taking on multiple part-time jobs became necessary to keep up, and that they expected to graduate in December 2026. An anonymous member said they could not afford to get fired before finishing the program. Anonymous member 840 said their cohort's Clinical 2 requirement was structured as 50 VSIM clinical hours and 85 in-person clinical hours.

Standards. 34 CFR 668.71-75 (Misrepresentation): marketing a program as compatible with full-time employment when 50 hours of mandatory synchronous VSIM sessions are scheduled on weekdays during business hours constitutes a misrepresentation of program structure. ACEN Standard 5: clinical learning requirements must be reasonable in relation to student obligations. Requiring full-time working students to use all of their annual PTO for one semester's VSIM sessions, or to leave their jobs, is not a reasonable clinical design for a program marketed to working adults. Consumer protection principles: students who left jobs or took pay cuts to accommodate VSIM scheduling suffered material financial harm based on a program design that was not adequately disclosed.

Impact. Students forced to leave professional employment lose income, employer-provided benefits including health insurance, and career continuity. Anonymous member 104 took a significant pay cut moving from a corporate role to CNA. Student BF left full-time work and is working multiple part-time jobs while struggling financially. These are documented, concrete financial harms attributable to a program design incompatibility that was not disclosed at enrollment. The VSIM scheduling issue also compounds HU-079 (135 hours not divisible by 12-hour shifts), since students face both the VSIM scheduling constraint and the extra-shift requirement simultaneously during clinical semesters.

Notes. VSIM sessions require synchronous attendance during scheduled windows, unlike asynchronous assignments that can be completed at the student's convenience. The marketing of the program as "flexible" and compatible with full-time work specifically targets career-changers with existing employment. The documented pattern of students leaving jobs, reducing to part-time, or exhausting PTO indicates the marketed flexibility does not extend to the clinical components of the program. Cross-reference: HU-096 (extreme workload), HU-079 (clinical hour structure), HU-071 (Spring 2025 placement crisis), HU-046 (enrollment misrepresentation).

HU-108: 3rd semester on-site clinical hours reduced 50% mid-program (90 hours to 45 hours) without student consent; virtual hours substituted; students enrolled under 90-hour expectation

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Mid-Program Clinical Hour Reduction	Date added	2026-05-05
Owner	Program Chair / Clinical Coordinator / Curriculum Committee

Finding. Per the tracker's evidence, third-semester Clinical III on-site hours were reduced from 90 to 45, with the remaining hours fulfilled by virtual simulation, a 50 percent reduction in direct patient care hours implemented mid-program without advance disclosure to enrolled students. This finding is distinct from HU-080 (mid-rotation requirement changes): HU-080 documents changes to the type of clinical hours; HU-108 documents a quantitative 50 percent reduction in on-site hours for an entire semester.

Evidence. Student H (Oct 3, 2024), from the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export, Dec 2022 to May 2026, Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review of 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, and 14,112 comments across 8 passes, Volume 7. No announcement email or formal program modification notice is referenced in the Facebook archive.

Reported statement. Student H said third semester now carries 45 on-site hours with the rest virtual, and noted the requirement had recently been changed from what used to be 90 on-site hours.

Standards. 34 CFR 668.71-75 (Misrepresentation): students who enrolled expecting 90 on-site clinical hours in semester 3 experienced materially different clinical training than disclosed. ACEN Standard 4: clinical learning experiences must meet established hour requirements; unilateral reduction of on-site hours mid-program without regulatory review or student notification constitutes a curriculum design change with potential accreditation implications. NCSBN Guidelines for Prelicensure Programs: direct patient care hours are a foundational clinical training requirement, and substituting virtual simulation for on-site hours requires regulatory approval in most state BON jurisdictions. State BON implications: if a state BON approved the program based on 90 on-site hours in semester 3 and the institution reduced those hours to 45 without BON notification, the program may not comply with the approved curriculum, potentially affecting student NCLEX eligibility (see HU-085, Alabama BON enforcement).

Impact. Students who completed Clinical III with 45 on-site hours received significantly less direct patient care experience than their predecessors or than the program originally represented. This compounds the virtual hour issues documented in HU-085 (Alabama BON enforcement of virtual hour limits). If state BONs that approved the program based on 90 on-site hours were not notified of the reduction, students graduating under the revised curriculum may not satisfy those states' licensure requirements. The substitution of virtual simulation for on-site hours is presented as equivalent, but as Alabama's BON enforcement action demonstrates, regulators do not always accept virtual hours as equivalent to direct patient care.

Notes. This is the third documented mid-program clinical structure change: HU-080 (type of hours changed mid-rotation), HU-083 (assessment regime eliminated), HU-108 (on-site hours cut 50 percent). The pattern establishes that material program changes are made unilaterally and implemented on enrolled students without their consent. Cross-reference: HU-080 (mid-rotation hour type changes), HU-085 (Alabama BON enforcement), HU-083 (milestones elimination), HU-010 (exit exam benchmark can change at any time).

HU-160: Clinical hours documentation requirement applied inconsistently between NSG 522 (Clinical I) and NSG 525 (Clinical II); current-term faculty required both a signed Log of Clinical Hours and CORE ELMS approval and described the prior accepted method as a student failure

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED (cross-term inconsistency and faculty characterization documented; sub-points in Notes marked for verification)
Issue type	Policy Inconsistency / Compliance Risk: clinical hours documentation method differed between NSG 522 and NSG 525 (with ADA overlay)	Date added	2026-06-05
Owner	Dean of Prelicensure Nursing (Dr. Stephanie Black RN DNP); Department Chair (Dr. Raywattie Prashad); Clinical faculty (Dr. Heather Gregg); Clinical Director (Rachel Powell)

Finding. Per the tracker's evidence, a clinical hours documentation method accepted in NSG 522 (Clinical I, prior term), namely CORE ELMS verification with the log and without a separate preceptor signature, was not accepted in NSG 525 (Clinical II, current term), where faculty stated that both a preceptor-signed log and CORE ELMS approval are program requirements and that the student failed to present the form for the preceptor to sign during the clinical experience (H. Gregg, personal communication, June 5, 2026). The reporting student states the prior term required only the log when hours were in ELMS, that the prior course was run by Clinical Director Rachel Powell, and that Dr. Prashad told him to enter her name so she could verify in CORE ELMS (The reporting student, personal communication, June 5, 2026). The change in documentation method was not communicated in advance, and a documented institutional inconsistency was attributed to the student as a failure. This concerns the same student and the same Summer 2026 clinical sequence as the NSG 521 grade-change issue logged at HU-159.

Evidence. Current term (NSG 525): faculty stated both a signed log and CORE ELMS approval are required and that the student did not present the form for signature, and earlier stated the hours sheet could be made a PDF for the preceptor to sign and upload (H. Gregg, personal communication, June 5, 2026). Prior term (NSG 522): the student states CORE ELMS verification was accepted with only the log, no separate signature, under Clinical Director Rachel Powell (The reporting student, personal communication, June 5, 2026). Prior-term written confirmation: Canvas feedback confirms the NSG 522 hours were accepted and the requirement met (R. Powell, personal communication, May 5, 2026). Prior-term log on its face: the NSG 522 Log of Clinical Hours shows blank preceptor-signature fields for most dated rows and a blank Faculty Signature line, with typed names rather than signatures in two later rows, Dr. Prashad and Tiffany Miller; the Student Signature is present and dated May 5, 2026 (Log of Clinical Hours, NSG 522, 2026). Handbook: defines clinical rotations, attendance, and documentation duties and assigns the final course grade to faculty, but the sections reviewed do not specify the hours-log verification method or require both methods (Herzing University, 2026). Source Group: email thread, ClinicalII (NSG525-7E), 2026 Summer C16, via Canvas and Outlook, June 5, 2026, participants Heather Gregg, the reporting student, Raywattie Prashad, Stephanie Black, and Rachel Powell; the NSG 522 Clinical I Log of Clinical Hours (the reporting student, Student Signature dated 5 May 2026); Canvas SpeedGrader feedback by Rachel Powell, May 5, 2026; Prelicensure Program Student Handbook (SICCED09255468); all provided by the reporting student.

Reported statement.

Faculty (NSG 525): "obtaining both a signed log and approval in CORE ELMS may feel redundant. However, both are program requirements"; and "having the necessary forms available for the preceptor to review and sign during the clinical experience, which you failed to do" (H. Gregg, personal communication, June 5, 2026). Clinical Director (NSG 522): "This confirms all clinical hours have been account for and the student has met the requirements for NSG 522" (R. Powell, personal communication, May 5, 2026). Student: "Last term in clinical they accepted the CORE ELMS as meeting the verification requirements and only required the log, they did not require the actual signature if it was in ELMS" (The reporting student, personal communication, June 5, 2026).

Standards. Institutional policy: the handbook provides that extenuating circumstances will be reviewed and considered by the instructor and the program chair, which is in tension with a no-exception application here, and it does not specify the hours-log verification method or require both a signed log and CORE ELMS approval (Herzing University, 2026). Accreditation: ACEN standards require that program and clinical evaluation policies be published, applied consistently, and communicated to students in advance (Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing [ACEN], 2023); confirm the exact ACEN standard numbering against the current ACEN Standards and Criteria. HLC Criterion 2.A (institutional integrity): policies are applied fairly and consistently. Federal administrative capability and notice: 34 CFR 668.14. Disability law overlay, since the student invoked accommodations in this thread: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, and 34 CFR 104.44; the Americans with Disabilities Act Title III, 42 U.S.C. 12181 et seq.; and the interactive-process obligation discussed in Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985). These citations identify standards potentially at issue and are not a legal conclusion. Cross-reference HU-125 (accommodation invocation characterized as a request) and HU-004 (interactive process not completed).

Impact. Fulfillment of the Unit 3 Clinical Hours Report, due Sunday per the thread, now depends on the preceptor's after-the-fact availability, which the student does not control, because a method accepted in NSG 522 was not accepted in NSG 525 and the change was not communicated in advance (H. Gregg; The reporting student, personal communications, June 5, 2026). The preceptor is reported to travel about five hours each week for the placement, which further limits a timely signature (The reporting student, personal communication, June 5, 2026). A faculty member attributed an institutional inconsistency to the student as a failure, which risks an unwarranted late or zero grade and conflicts with the prior-term written confirmation that requirements were met (R. Powell, personal communication, May 5, 2026). The Dean of Prelicensure Nursing was out of office until Monday, June 15, 2026, so a time-sensitive, accommodation-relevant matter risks going unaddressed before the deadline (S. Black, personal communication, June 5, 2026; see HU-158). Consistent with a documented pattern of cross-section inconsistency and shifting requirements (HU-033, HU-040, HU-126, HU-128) and the retroactive supersession framing in HU-064.

Notes. Sub-points to verify, kept separate from the CONFIRMED core: (a) the statement that Dr. Prashad instructed the student to enter her name for CORE ELMS verification is documented as the student's account and should be independently corroborated (The reporting student, personal communication, June 5, 2026); (b) whether a late or zero grade is ultimately applied; (c) the exact NSG 522 and NSG 525 syllabus language on hours-log verification. Recommended follow-up: obtain and attach the NSG 522 and NSG 525 syllabi and clinical-documentation instructions; request written confirmation from Dr. Prashad and Rachel Powell of the method accepted in NSG 522; ask NSG 525 to honor the prior method or grant a reasonable extension tied to preceptor availability under the handbook extenuating-circumstances provision and the invoked accommodations; ask faculty to correct the failure characterization; escalate in writing to the Dean and the ADA coordinator noting the June 15 return; preserve the email thread, the Canvas feedback screenshot, and the log as exhibits. Platform-naming inconsistency is also visible across the program: CORE ELMS appears here, while Clinician Nexus, Complio, and MyClinicalExchange appear elsewhere (see HU-092). Cross-references: HU-004, HU-033, HU-040, HU-064, HU-125, HU-126, HU-128, HU-155, HU-158, HU-159. APA 7 note: the emails and the Canvas feedback are personal communications, cited in text only and not in a reference list.

HU-165: Lead: an anonymous reporter (Anonymous member 443) describes a scheduling and resource failure at the NSG 122 nursing intensive in Nashville, which left two validations (IV Infusion and Parenteral Medication Administration) uncompleted through no fault of the reporter; accommodation requests to finish were denied; Herzing determined the reporter failed NSG 122 and must repeat the course and intensive; a circumstances appeal was denied; and the reporter faces additional tuition as a single mother paying out of pocket; see HU-165a through HU-165e

Severity	High	Status	POSSIBLE
Issue type	Lead / index for a split cluster (scheduling and resource failure at nursing intensive; accommodation denied; course failure; appeal denied; financial impact; unverified third-party account)	Date added	2026-06-06
Owner	Herzing Intensive Program Staff (Nashville) / Academic Affairs (names not provided by the reporter)

Finding. This is the lead entry for a reported account by an anonymous student, Anonymous member 443, who attended the NSG 122 nursing intensive in Nashville. According to the tracker, the reporter states that on the final day of the intensive two validations remained, IV Infusion and Parenteral Medication Administration, that required simulation activities had occupied most of the day, and that by the time those activities ended, instructors and students were occupied with other evaluations and some skills required a second participant, creating further delays. The reporter states she was ultimately told time had run out, that her requests to stay longer or return the following morning were denied, and that upon returning home she learned Herzing had determined she failed NSG 122 and must repeat the course and the intensive. A circumstances appeal was denied. The reporter also reports that she became emotional during a remediation session and found some staff interactions discouraging. She passed the Fundamentals HESI with a score of 1225 and completed many other required skills. The account is the reporter's own and is unverified; it is recorded here evidence-first for review. Tracked separately: HU-165a (the structural scheduling and resource failure that left no time for the final two validations), HU-165b (denied accommodation requests to finish), HU-165c (course failure and mandatory repeat imposed based on the uncompleted validations), HU-165d (circumstances appeal denied), and HU-165e (financial impact for a single mother paying out of pocket). See each sub-issue for the reporter's statements and the standards raised for review.

Evidence. Anonymous reporter (Anonymous member 443), Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, provided by the reporting student.

Notes. The reporter states the intensive was held in Nashville. Reporter states she passed the Fundamentals HESI with a score of 1225 and completed many other required skills. Reporter states she became emotional during a remediation session and found some staff interactions discouraging; these are noted as contextual welfare concerns not separately tracked. All statements are attributed to the reporter, Anonymous member 443, and are unverified; institutional records, including the intensive schedule, sign-in and completion logs, the appeal record, and billing records, would be needed to confirm. Added 2026-06-06 at the top of the date-added section, newest first. Parts: HU-165a, HU-165b, HU-165c, HU-165d, HU-165e. Cross-References: HU-039 (last-minute intensive clearance emails after non-refundable travel purchased), HU-040 (intensive skills validation stamp disputed as not a valid signature), HU-091 (check-off failures during intensives causing course failures before successful appeal).

HU-165a: Reported structural scheduling and resource failure at the nursing intensive: required simulation activities occupied the reporter's final day, leaving insufficient time for the two remaining validations, and instructor and partner unavailability created additional delays outside the reporter's control

Severity	High	Status	POSSIBLE
Issue type	Structural Scheduling and Resource Failure at Intensive (reported)	Date added	2026-06-06
Owner	Herzing Intensive Program Staff (Nashville)

Finding. According to the tracker, the reporter states that on the final day of the intensive she still had two validations remaining, IV Infusion and Parenteral Medication Administration. She states she spent a large part of the day in required simulation activities, and that by the time those ended, many instructors and students were occupied with other evaluations. She also states that some skills required another participant, creating additional delays. She describes continuing to try to complete everything throughout the intensive, participating in remediation when requested, and practicing independently.

Evidence. Anonymous reporter (Anonymous member 443), Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, provided by the reporting student, describing required simulation activities occupying the final day, instructor and student unavailability, and partner-dependency delays.

Reported statement. The reporter, Anonymous member 443, states she spent much of the day in required simulation activities, and that by the time she was free to complete the remaining skills, most instructors and students were occupied with other evaluations, with some skills also requiring a second participant, which added further delay.

Standards. Raises concerns under administrative-capability expectations (34 CFR 668.14): an institution is responsible for structuring an assessment program that provides students a fair opportunity to complete required evaluations; HLC Criterion 4.B (appropriate assessment of student achievement); ACEN Standard 4.6 (evaluation methodologies are varied, regularly reviewed, and reflect current evidence-based practices). If the intensive schedule required simulation activities that structurally displaced time needed for skills validations, the scheduling design is a program-integrity concern. Recorded for review. Lead: HU-165.

Impact. If accurate, the reporter was prevented from completing two validations not by refusal or inability but by the program's own scheduling structure and resource constraints.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-165 (lead). Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-06.

HU-165b: Reported denial of accommodation requests to complete the remaining validations: the reporter states she asked to stay a little longer or to return the following morning, but both requests were denied

Severity	High	Status	POSSIBLE
Issue type	Accommodation Requests Denied at Intensive (reported)	Date added	2026-06-06
Owner	Herzing Intensive Program Staff (Nashville)

Finding. According to the tracker, the reporter states that after being told time had run out she asked if she could stay a little longer or return the following morning to complete the two remaining validations, but both requests were denied. The reporter describes this in the context of having already participated in required activities all day, having engaged in remediation when requested, and having completed many other skills.

Evidence. Anonymous reporter (Anonymous member 443), Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, provided by the reporting student, describing the request to stay longer or return the following morning and the denial of both requests.

Reported statement. The reporter, Anonymous member 443, states she asked to stay a little longer or return the following morning, and that both requests were denied.

Standards. Raises concerns under HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, including fair academic standards and processes) and administrative-capability expectations (34 CFR 668.14). Denying a student any opportunity to complete validations that were unreached due to required program activities and resource constraints, rather than the student's unwillingness, is a fair-process concern. Recorded for review. Lead: HU-165.

Impact. If accurate, the denial of any accommodation removed what could have been a straightforward remedy to a scheduling failure, converting a logistical problem into a course failure.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-165 (lead). Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-06.

HU-165c: Reported course failure and mandatory course and intensive repeat imposed because the two validations were not completed before the intensive ended, when the non-completion was caused by required activities and resource unavailability rather than student performance

Severity	High	Status	POSSIBLE
Issue type	Course Failure and Mandatory Repeat Based on Scheduling-Driven Non-completion (reported)	Date added	2026-06-06
Owner	Herzing Academic Affairs / Intensive Program

Finding. According to the tracker, the reporter states that after returning home she learned that because the two validations were not completed before the intensive ended, Herzing determined she had failed NSG 122 and must repeat the course and the intensive. She notes she had passed her Fundamentals HESI with a score of 1225 and had successfully completed many other required skills, and that her concern was never about refusal or unwillingness to complete the work but about not being given the opportunity to finish.

Evidence. Anonymous reporter (Anonymous member 443), Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, provided by the reporting student, describing the course-failure determination and mandatory repeat, and the reporter's statement of her HESI score of 1225 and completion of other skills as evidence of engagement.

Reported statement. The reporter, Anonymous member 443, states she learned that Herzing determined she failed NSG 122 and must repeat the course and the intensive because the two validations were not completed before the intensive ended, and that her concern is not being given the opportunity to finish the final two validations before the intensive ended.

Standards. Raises concerns under administrative-capability expectations (34 CFR 668.14), HLC Criterion 2.A (fair and consistent academic standards), and ACEN Standard 4.6 (evaluation methodologies). Imposing a course failure and mandatory repeat where the non-completion is traceable to the program's own scheduling structure and resource constraints, rather than the student's performance or conduct, is a program-integrity and fairness concern. Recorded for review. Lead: HU-165.

Impact. If accurate, the reporter faces repeating a full course and a full intensive, with the associated time, academic-standing, and financial consequences, for a failure attributable to the program's design rather than her performance.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-165 (lead). Reporter states she passed the Fundamentals HESI with a score of 1225 and completed many other required skills. Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-06.

HU-183: Fall 2026 Intensive II registration opened without students knowing their clinical schedule and without Nashville specific session dates provided, undermining an informed registration decision

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Registration Process Requires a Decision Before Necessary Scheduling Information Is Available	Date added	2026-07-26
Owner	Intensives Online team / Savannah Wilcox (Intensive Student Coordinator, Brookfield) / Catherine Gray (Intensive Student Coordinator, Nashville)

Finding. Per the tracker's evidence, on July 23, 2026, Herzing's Intensives Online team opened registration for the Fall 2026 Intensive II sessions, giving students six weeks to select a session, with registration closing August 31, 2026, or sooner if any session reached its 36-student capacity. The announcement listed six Brookfield, Wisconsin session date ranges (single week and dual weekend formats) running from November 9, 2026 through December 10, 2026, and associated hotel information, but did not include specific Nashville session dates in the body of the email, even though a Nashville-based Student Coordinator, Catherine Gray, was listed as a point of contact. The reporting student replied the same evening that he did not yet know his clinical schedule and could not sign up for an intensive session without it, and separately noted that he did not see dates listed for the Nashville campus. The email acknowledged that intensives and clinical experiences are separate requirements handled by separate teams that cannot assist with each other's scheduling questions, which does not resolve the practical problem of needing both schedules to make a single, informed registration choice within a capacity-limited, first-come, first-served window.

Evidence. Email, Intensives Online to students, Jul 23, 2026, 7:06 PM: intensive registration announcement, six-week registration window closing August 31, 2026, 36-student session capacity, and six listed Brookfield session date ranges. The reporting student, email reply, Jul 24, 2026, 9:41 PM: statement that he could not schedule without knowing his clinical schedule and that he did not see dates for the Nashville campus. Source Group: email thread, subject Fall 2026, Brookfield, WI: Intensive II Registration Now Open, Important Information and Next Steps, from Intensives Online (Herzing University) to students, Thu Jul 23, 2026, 7:06 PM, with attachments (Brookfield Student Intensive Frequently Asked Questions, Intensives Signup Instructions for Online Students); the reporting student reply, Fri Jul 24, 2026, 9:41 PM; provided by the reporting student.

Reported statement.

How are we supposed to schedule this when we do not yet have our clinical schedule? Also, I don't see the dates for the Nahville campus.

Standards. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability, including coordination of institutional processes so students can reasonably comply with them) and HLC Criterion 2.A (clear and accurate communication to students). A capacity-limited, deadline-driven registration process that depends on information the institution's own separate clinical scheduling team has not yet released risks students making uninformed choices or losing a preferred session slot through no fault of their own. Cross-reference the existing clinical schedule instability entries in this tracker for the broader pattern of short-notice clinical scheduling.

Impact. Students, including the reporting student, risk registering for an intensive session that conflicts with a clinical schedule not yet released, or delaying registration until a preferred session fills to capacity given the 36-student-per-session limit and first-come, first-served structure. This compounds the previously documented pattern in this tracker of short-notice and shifting clinical scheduling.

Notes. Recommend requesting written confirmation of the specific Nashville campus Intensive II session dates, since none were included in the July 23, 2026 announcement despite a Nashville coordinator being listed as a contact, and requesting that Herzing release clinical schedules before or concurrent with intensive registration windows in the future. Cross-References: the existing tracker entries documenting short-notice clinical scheduling and its impact on the reporting student's accommodation-related planning (the June 4, 2026 meeting group); HU-184 (the related ADA and location dispute arising from this same registration cycle).

See also

• Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement
• Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design
• Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication
• Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records
• Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations
• Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process
• Herzing Issues: Enrollment, Registration, and Billing
• Herzing University Issue Tracker