Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dental Assistant Program Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board proposes moving dental‑assistant program approval to accrediting bodies after widespread compliance gaps
Summary
Board staff reported major compliance problems in dental assistant (RDA) programs and proposed shifting initial and renewal approvals to third‑party accrediting agencies; the board took the agenda item as informational and directed further stakeholder work.
Board staff told the Dental Board of California on May 15 that their recent program reevaluations found widespread deficiencies in dental‑assistant educational programs and courses and recommended moving program‑approval authority to an accrediting body that routinely evaluates educational programs.
The presentation, made by Tina Valerie, chief of license and program compliance, said the board has conducted targeted reevaluations and site visits and found failures that include insufficient clinical hours, missing or incomplete student records, inadequate assessment instruments, no documented supervised clinical instruction, and program providers that rely on employers to complete students’ clinical training.
“Regulation requires a minimum of 265 hours, and what we have seen are programs only requiring as low as 98 hours, a hundred and 70 hours, a hundred and 80 hours, and 240 hours of clinical instruction,” Valerie told the board. She added that the $300 application fee in current statute does not cover the board’s staff costs to review and reapprove certain new courses and programs created after recent statutory changes.
Valerie said the board reevaluated 21 programs in the last year: 12 had approval withdrawn; three were granted continued approval; six reported closures. The board has conducted four reevalutions of RDA programs in the past year and oversees dozens more programs and course providers.
Board members did not take a formal vote on statutory change at today’s meeting. The item was informational; the board agreed to send the matter back to the working group and to hold stakeholder meetings to refine an approach that could include delegating approval and periodic review to an accrediting agency.
Why it matters: The board regulates education pathways that qualify people to work in patient care. Staff reported that many providers are not meeting minimum clinical‑instruction hours, recordkeeping and evaluation standards; moving approvals to accredited agencies would change oversight and could improve consistency but would also change cost structures and require new statutory or regulatory authority.
Next steps: Staff will convene stakeholders, return recommendations to the board and draft potential legislative or regulatory language if the group supports moving to an accreditor model.
