Oncology Nursing CE Needs: 2026 ONS Survey Results
Expert Perspectives · Jewel Iah R. Abuloc, MD · 2026-09-21
Insights for CE accreditation professionals, education designers, and joint providership planners
More than half of oncology nurses in i3 Health’s survey at the 2026 ONS Congress identified insufficient staffing coverage as a barrier to taking time away from patients for continuing education. Cost or lack of funding was reported by nearly as many. Clinical challenges still matter. But access, format, and activity length often decide whether an activity is usable at all.
The survey reached an experienced workforce whose frontline practice challenges point to a clear planning priority: design for real responsibilities. Also design for the conditions under which nurses can actually participate. For accreditation professionals, the findings can help inform both needs assessment and activity design.
Experience does not eliminate the need for continued learning
More than three quarters of respondents had spent at least six years in oncology practice. More than half reported more than 10 years of experience.
Despite that experience, several clinical challenges were frequently reported. Among registered nurses and nurse navigators who completed the clinical practice section (n=162), 56.2% selected symptom management and supportive care as one of their greatest challenges. Addressing disparities in care for vulnerable populations was selected by 46.9%, while more than 4 in 10 selected recognizing early or subtle infusion-related toxicities (42.6%) or safely administering and handling novel therapies (42.0%) as areas of difficulty. Patient counseling related to adherence to oral oncolytics was also commonly reported.
The survey also identified challenges within the advanced clinical competencies section. Among respondents who completed this portion (n=45), 46.7% selected understanding the mechanisms of action of novel agents and educating staff or patients as a major challenge. Management of immune-related adverse events and shared decision-making for late-line treatment were each selected by 37.8%.
For continuing education, content has to match what the intended learner is responsible for in practice. An activity designed around emerging treatment mechanisms may fit one group; another may need supportive care, toxicity recognition, administration and handling, or patient counseling.
Start with the learner’s actual responsibilities. Also consider the decisions they face.
For needs assessment, a reported challenge is a starting point, not by itself evidence of a specific knowledge or competence gap. Before setting objectives, planners should ask what makes the task difficult. They should also ask which part education can address.
Educational need does not always mean educational access
More than half of respondents, 51.2%, identified insufficient staffing coverage to allow time away from patient care as a barrier to keeping up with advances in oncology. Cost or lack of funding for continuing education was reported by 45.4%. Overall, nearly three quarters identified staffing limitations, financial constraints, or both.
Posting an activity does not create protected time.
A clinically relevant, evidence-based activity still has limited reach if nurses cannot step away from patient care or lack support to participate. Access has to be planned during design, not after launch. These findings also help separate educational needs from operational barriers: CE cannot provide staffing coverage. But planners can consider participation options that accommodate limited time away from patient care.
Flexibility should complement, not replace, live education
Live educational events were the most frequently selected format, preferred by 75.8% of respondents. At the same time, 43.0% selected on-demand or enduring materials, and 37.2% selected live online education. Another format, online microlearning, was selected by 30.4%. More than two thirds selected at least two educational formats.
Live sessions create a defined period for discussion with faculty and peers, especially useful when the topic involves clinical judgment or treatment decisions. Enduring and microlearning formats offer alternatives for nurses who cannot participate at a fixed hour. More than 80% of respondents were willing to spend no more than 1.5 hours on an individual CE activity.
That does not mean every topic should become microlearning.
Length should follow the objective and the audience. For many topics, a live component plus an enduring track is a practical mix. Format preferences can inform those choices. But they do not establish educational effectiveness. The preference for live events should also be considered in the context of a survey conducted at an in-person congress.
Continuing education is not simply remediation
Nearly three quarters of respondents rated their confidence in independently applying current evidence-based oncology guidelines at 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale. At the same time, 86.0% rated the potential for continuing education to improve patient outcomes at 4 or 5.
Confidence and a continued need for education can coexist.
A request for CE is not automatic evidence of poor competence. Experienced oncology nurses may be strong in current practice. They may still need updates as evidence, treatment frameworks, and guidance change. For outcomes planning, the distinction matters: self-reported confidence does not demonstrate competence. Belief in CE’s potential does not demonstrate improved patient outcomes.
Evaluation should assess the change the activity is designed to support—for example, whether learners can recognize a toxicity and select an appropriate next step in a clinical case.
Implications for activity design
Planner question | Survey signal | Design implication |
|---|---|---|
Who is this for? | Respondents reported challenges involving symptom care, disparities, toxicities, novel therapies, oral adherence, mechanisms of action, immune-related adverse events, and late-line shared decision-making. | Design content pathways around learner responsibilities—such as supportive care versus mechanisms of action and novel agents—rather than one generic “oncology update.” |
Can they attend? | Insufficient staffing coverage was a barrier for 51.2%; cost or lack of funding for 45.4%. Nearly three quarters identified staffing limitations, financial constraints, or both. | Plan timing that accounts for coverage constraints, employer-supported participation, and free or funded access before launch. |
How should it run? | Live events were preferred by 75.8%; selecting multiple formats was common. More than 80% were willing to spend no more than 1.5 hours per activity. | Pair live discussion with enduring or microlearning options where appropriate; keep individual sessions focused unless the objective requires more time. |
For education partners evaluating joint providership, these questions belong in the initial planning conversation alongside accreditation responsibilities and credit requirements. The host’s brand and content focus can remain central, while the accredited provider guides the accreditation process. Both sides should design for access, not content alone. For additional background on nursing education accreditation, consult the American Nurses Credentialing Center’s accreditation resources.
i3 Health Joint Providership Services works with societies and education teams on accredited oncology nursing CE built around those constraints.
About the survey: i3 Health conducted this survey at its exhibition booth during the 2026 ONS Congress. Findings reflect participating respondents. They may not represent the broader oncology nursing workforce.