By: Elaina McAdams, DNP, RN, MBA, NEA-BC, FACHE
Overview of the Current Free Labor Model
The free labor model in healthcare education is a longstanding practice in which preceptors, who are licensed healthcare professionals, volunteer their time and expertise to mentor and supervise students in clinical placements. While this model is framed as a cost-effective solution for academic institutions, it ultimately places significant economic and psychological strain on healthcare professionals, students, and healthcare facilities alike. It relies on the assumption that preceptors will provide their expertise and time for clinical rotations without compensation, and that healthcare institutions will bear the indirect costs of training future healthcare workers.
This model assumes that preceptors—nurses, doctors, therapists, and other healthcare professionals—are willing to sacrifice their personal time and energy without compensation, which is increasingly becoming an unsustainable expectation. At the same time, academic institutions continue to expect healthcare facilities to provide training opportunities, often without addressing the long-term ramifications of this practice.
Economic Burden on Healthcare Facilities
Healthcare facilities have long been asked to absorb the indirect costs associated with student clinical placements, especially in high-demand areas such as nursing, medicine, and allied health. These facilities are expected to offer valuable resources—clinical spaces, equipment, and time of experienced healthcare professionals—all while providing their regular services to the community. This arrangement places a significant economic burden on institutions that are already operating with tight margins.
Hospitals and clinics are also expected to provide a support structure for preceptors, including administrative resources and coordination with academic institutions. This takes valuable time and resources away from patient care, leading to inefficiencies and a strain on staff. As these burdens continue to grow, healthcare facilities may find themselves unable to absorb the costs of training the next generation of healthcare professionals without sacrificing the quality of patient care or the well-being of their existing staff.
Additionally, healthcare facilities must account for the increased risk of liability associated with student placements. Students require supervision and oversight, which can increase the workload and responsibility of preceptors, further complicating the financial and operational challenges faced by these institutions.
Burnout and Decreased Job Satisfaction Among Preceptors
The free labor model not only places economic stress on healthcare facilities but also contributes to burnout and decreased job satisfaction among preceptors. Preceptors, who are often already working full-time in demanding healthcare roles, are asked to dedicate additional hours to mentoring students without compensation. This adds to their workload and stress levels, increasing the likelihood of burnout.
Healthcare professionals who take on precepting responsibilities do so out of a sense of duty and passion for teaching, but this unpaid labor can take a toll. Over time, this expectation can erode job satisfaction, leading to disengagement and, ultimately, a decline in the quality of training provided. Without adequate compensation or recognition, preceptors may become discouraged, ultimately leaving the profession or reducing their involvement in clinical education. This is especially true in high-stress specialties like emergency care or critical care, where precepting adds considerable complexity to an already demanding role.
As burnout among preceptors becomes more widespread, healthcare institutions will face increased difficulty in recruiting and retaining skilled professionals to serve in these critical educational roles. This can create a ripple effect, where the supply of qualified preceptors shrinks just as the demand for clinical placements rises, exacerbating existing staffing shortages and placing further strain on the healthcare system.
Limited Capacity and Competition for Clinical Placements
One of the most significant consequences of the free labor model is the limited capacity for clinical placements. As healthcare facilities are burdened by the indirect costs of training students and preceptors face increasing burnout, the availability of clinical placements dwindles. This creates a bottleneck for students entering the healthcare field, particularly in high-demand specialties, and leads to fierce competition for limited slots.
When clinical placements are scarce, students face longer delays in completing their education and entering the workforce, which ultimately contributes to the worsening healthcare workforce shortage. The competition for placements exacerbates the issue, as healthcare institutions may have to prioritize students from certain academic programs or limit the number of students they can accommodate. This results in a fractured system that fails to efficiently meet the needs of both students and healthcare facilities.
Furthermore, the competition for preceptorships often leads to uneven access to quality training experiences, disproportionately affecting students from underserved or underfunded institutions. Without sufficient placement opportunities, students may not receive the necessary exposure or mentorship, which can lead to gaps in their clinical training and, ultimately, compromise patient care in the long term.
How This Business Model is a Recipe for Failure
The free labor model perpetuated by academic institutions and healthcare organizations is inherently flawed, as it relies on unsustainable practices that place the burden of training the next generation of healthcare workers on overworked, under-compensated professionals. By failing to adequately compensate preceptors and support healthcare institutions with the necessary resources to provide quality clinical training, this model risks exacerbating the already dire healthcare workforce shortage.
The underlying issue lies in the myth that preceptors are prohibited from being paid. In reality, there is no federal mandate that bars compensation for precepting, yet many institutions perpetuate this myth. The idea that preceptors cannot be paid is a relic of outdated practices that fail to recognize the increasing complexity and demands of healthcare education. As the healthcare field continues to evolve, so too must the way in which we approach clinical training.
To sustain the healthcare workforce and ensure that students are adequately prepared for the demands of the profession, a new model is required—one that recognizes the value of preceptorship as an essential part of healthcare education and compensates preceptors accordingly. Compensation could take various forms, from direct payment for their time to providing incentives such as continuing education credits or career advancement opportunities. Academic institutions and healthcare facilities need to partner to create a more equitable and sustainable system, ensuring that preceptors are supported and that students receive the highest quality clinical education possible.
Conclusion
The free labor model in healthcare education is no longer tenable. As the healthcare system grapples with staffing shortages, burnout, and increased demand for services, it is clear that the current approach to clinical placements is a recipe for failure. A shift toward compensating preceptors for their time and expertise, along with a more sustainable approach to managing clinical placements, is essential for addressing these challenges. Only by recognizing the value of preceptorship and supporting healthcare professionals in their teaching roles can we ensure that the next generation of healthcare workers is adequately prepared to meet the needs of our communities.
Comentários