Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Scope Of Practice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates who may interpret dental hygiene scope of practice; staff to research authority and processes
Summary
Members discussed limits of the board—s authority to interpret scope of practice, the role of subject‑matter experts and the board attorney, and examples such as myofunctional therapy and Botox; staff said legislative authority may be needed for some formal interpretive powers.
Board members and public commenters spent substantial time on March 22 discussing how the Dental Hygiene Board can interpret scope of practice questions for dental hygienists and where legal authority resides.
Why it matters: scope interpretations determine which procedures licensees may lawfully perform and shape enforcement, training, and potential legislative fixes.
What was said: Anthony Lum, executive officer, described current practice: staff and the assigned DCA attorney rely on subject‑matter experts (SMEs) and internal legal advice when questions arise. He said the board uses contracted experts and the board—s in‑house subject matter resource, Dr. Adena Petty, when enforcement or clarification is needed. Lum emphasized that whether the board can formally interpret scope depends on the statutory language that authorizes the board to do so.
Public commenters and board members raised examples. A licensee and member of the public described a recent request to interpret whether myofunctional therapy fell within dental hygiene practice; another question considered whether Botox would be within scope. Board staff noted that ongoing treatment with some modalities is not currently specified in statute or regulation and that extending scope would require legislation.
Some speakers urged the board to develop a process for formal reviews rather than relying exclusively on case‑by‑case enforcement. Rachel Doherty asked that the board consider conducting reviews with experts to define scope for consumer protection purposes; Lum said creating clearer statutory authority would be a legislative matter and that the board uses experts when investigating enforcement cases.
Outcome: the board did not adopt a formal interpretive rule. Staff and counsel were asked to continue researching how other boards handle scope interpretation, collect examples, and report back at a future meeting; the transcript records follow‑up research and staff outreach to other boards, including the Respiratory Care Board of California, as part of that work.
No formal vote or regulation change occurred on this agenda item during the meeting.
