Many tools.
One accountability gap.

Accredit the provider. But who verifies the course?

One way to strengthen online CE accountability is to require independent accreditation of the education provider rather than separate verification of every course. The IACET Accredited Provider model illustrates this approach. IACET evaluates an organization's policies and processes for designing, delivering, assessing and evaluating continuing education, and reviews examples of actual courses. It accredits the organization, not each individual course.

The remaining risk is course-specific. Different courses on the same platform may have different configurations, and technical behavior can change after provider accreditation. A provider can follow a credible quality-assurance process yet still have an individual course that warrants correction. This is a limitation of the scope of assurance, not an allegation that IACET or its accredited providers are failing their standards.

Could the approaches be combined? Yes. Provider accreditation paired with randomized, risk-based or complaint-triggered functional course audits could improve oversight. That would be a meaningful policy option, but selective testing still would not independently verify every individual course. TRACE therefore favors independent third-party functional verification of each online CE course against the relevant Board's requirements, alongside existing provider accreditation or PACE and Board approval where applicable.

For Boards: Accreditation answers whether a provider has credible educational systems and processes. Course-level functional verification answers whether a particular course works in compliance with your rules. Both can contribute, but they answer different questions.

About the IACET model: Accredited Provider FAQ · How course examples are reviewed · What accreditation does and does not approve. IACET is discussed as an example, not endorsed as a required or exclusive provider.