We’re finishing a crosswalk that aligns each course outcome to the AACN Essentials domains and the NGN clinical judgment model, and I’m wrestling with how granular the evidence needs to be for CCNE/NLN CNEA reviewers. For those who wrapped a 2024–25 cycle, did one artifact per competency per level satisfy expectations, and which platform — Watermark, ExamSoft, or a well-structured spreadsheet — held up during the site visit?
“Rabbits can’t vomit” — same energy: the only venomous primate is the slow loris. In our skills lab we treat any nip as a venom exposure: 15‑minute flush, immediate documentation, and epi + airway kit at hand. Would love a shared SOP for exotics alongside last week’s heatwave prep.
Wrapped CCNE this fall: “one artifact per competency per level” passed, but only when it included the rubric with performance level and a tagged student sample. We mapped in Watermark and pushed NGN steps via ExamSoft item tags, then gave reviewers a one‑page heat map export. Caveat: they balked at syllabus‑only evidence — add at least one scored work sample or they’ll ask for follow‑up.
We passed NLN CNEA last spring using one artifact per competency per level, but for NGN clinical judgment we added a second clinical sample plus an ExamSoft Outcomes report tied to item‑level tags. Reviewers cared less about platform than a breadcrumb trail — our 1‑page matrix (course outcome → Essentials domain → CJM cue) and rubric alignment matched what @s_wilson11 noted.