Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infection Control Regs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dental Assisting Council refers infection-control regulation draft back to working group after stakeholder concerns
Summary
After extensive public and council comment on a proposed update to minimum infection-control standards, the Dental Assisting Council voted to send the draft back to its working group for revisions and further coordination with the Dental Hygiene Board of California.
The Dental Assisting Council on Feb. 6 voted to refer a proposed update to minimum infection-control regulations back to the council's working group after stakeholders and council members raised technical and implementation concerns.
The proposed regulatory text would have amended CCR Title 16, Section 1,005 to update the board's infection-control standards; Brent Nelson, the council's legislative and regulatory specialist, told the council that "The Board last updated the language way back in 2011. CDC guidelines were last updated in June 2024," and staff recommended forwarding the draft (attachment 2) to the Dental Hygiene Board of California for consensus before initiating rulemaking.
Council members and multiple public commenters urged further revision. Stakeholders and instructors raised operational concerns about provisions that they said were unclear or infeasible in practice: the order in which cleaning methods are listed (hand scrubbing versus ultrasonic cleaning), repeated use of the word "immediately" for sterilization and changing protective attire, requirements that utility gloves be sterilized after each use, and lack of specificity about whether the motor portion of low-speed handpieces must be sterilized. A registered infection-control instructor and several industry groups also urged clearer guidance and more explicit dental unit waterline monitoring language.
Melody Randolph of the Dental Assisting Alliance told the council the draft contained several items that "would be problematic" in practice and requested page-by-page review; Leslie Canahan, a registered provider of infection-control courses, said she could support expedited electronic delivery but urged clearer technical definitions. Bruce Witcher of the California Dental Association thanked staff for removing a top-shield eyewear requirement and endorsed alignment with OSHA and CDC standards.
Faced with the volume and technical nature of comments, a motion to adopt attachment 2 without changes was made and seconded but later rescinded. Council member Olague then moved to refer the draft and the public comments received to the working group for further review and revision; the council voted to approve that motion. The council instructed staff to provide the working group with written public comments and to appoint an additional infection-control expert to replace a former member, so the working group would again include two members from the council to match the Dental Hygiene Board's representation.
The action is procedural: the council did not adopt regulation text or begin rulemaking. Council staff and counsel said the working group will reconvene, review specific stakeholder suggestions, coordinate required consensus with the Dental Hygiene Board, and return recommended text to the council and board for subsequent action. Tracy Montez, executive officer, cautioned that additional rounds of revision will delay the rulemaking schedule and emphasized the importance of reviewers submitting written comments to speed the process.
Votes at a glance: the referral motion carried on a roll call vote (tally: ayes recorded by board staff; staff recorded the motion as passed). No regulatory text was adopted at the meeting.
Council members and stakeholders emphasized next steps that must be clarified by the working group: reordering cleaning-method preferences (prioritize ultrasonic over hand scrubbing), removing or qualifying the word "immediately" where sterilization and attire changes are impractical, clarifying utility-glove expectations during room setup versus clinical breakdown, specifying whether utility gloves must be sterilized or may be disinfected, clarifying handpiece sterilization (nose cone versus motor), and adding dental-unit waterline monitoring and response language. Staff said current board-approved infection-control course providers (approved under existing CCR sections) will need to submit applications to demonstrate compliance if they seek approval under any new statutory or regulatory pathway being developed.
The council set no timeline for the working group's return; staff said the item will be brought back once working-group revisions and coordination with the Dental Hygiene Board are complete.
