TO THE EDITORS: The National Certification Corporation (NCC) would like to comment on the article, "The case for an electronic fetal heart rate monitoring certification exam." We would clarify that there are differences between cre-dentialing and other general assessments. Each type of assessment has its place to foster better care for the obstetric patient. Credentialing is a rigorous procedure that must comply with established criteria to be considered a valid assessment tool. General assessments, as proposed, can take a number of forms, which are not subjected to the same rigorous development and psychometric standards. The 15,000 professionals who have taken the NCC electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) examination demonstrates that the need for a credentialing examination is already being met, is well established, and is widely used. The process proposed of creating 2 separate examinations appears to be counterproductive to the goals of promoting multidisciplinary communication and collaboration related to EFM tracing interpretation and management. A major benefit of the NCC EFM examination is the ability of the perinatal team to acknowledge credentialing has been achieved on the same content, and interprofessional providers have a similar understanding of applying the principles of EFM to clinical practice. The concept of 2 separate examinations seems to be a step backward in promoting teamwork in the perinatal setting.
展开▼
