Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Chiropractic Assistant Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs draft rules defining chiropractic assistants, sends proposal to full board
Summary
The Enforcement Committee voted 3-0 to recommend proposed regulatory language to define and set minimum supervision and training requirements for chiropractic assistants (CCR Title 16 §312), including pathways by exam, education, or experience for indirect supervision.
The Board of Chiropractic Examiners Enforcement Committee on Dec. 19 recommended that the full board consider proposed amendments to California Code of Regulations, Title 16, section 312 to define “chiropractic assistant” and establish minimum supervision and training requirements.
Staff presented a conceptual draft that would define a chiropractic assistant as a person assisting a licensee with clinical care and propose three pathways for eligibility to work under indirect supervision: passing an examination (the draft refers to the Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards certification), completion of specified education, or documented clinical experience (the draft sets 2,000 hours as an example equivalent to roughly one year of supervised clinical experience). The draft also makes the supervising licensee responsible for ensuring any assistant has the knowledge, skills and training to perform delegated duties safely.
Ms. Walker, the staff presenter, said the draft was based in part on models used by other healing-arts boards and on FCLB standards. “We took the language of the committee last reviewed and then highlighted the substantial changes that were made,” Walker said. The draft would not change direct-supervision requirements but would set minimum standards where the licensee is not on the premises.
Committee discussion focused on flexibility for future equivalent certifications, whether the experience threshold should be lower than 2,000 hours, how to define parameters for physiotherapy modalities such as ultrasound and electrical stimulation, and whether the label “chiropractic assistant” should be limited to clinical duties. Dr. Perez recommended allowing broader equivalency language so the board can recognize future nationally recognized programs; Dr. Perez also raised concerns about modality parameters. Dr. Lawrence Adams asked about the provenance of the 2,000‑hour threshold; staff said it was drawn from FCLB minimums and could be revisited by the committee.
After staff said it would clean up phrasing and work with legal counsel to finalize regulatory text, Dr. Adams moved to recommend the proposal, as amended by the day’s discussion, to the full board for consideration; Chair Sweet seconded. The committee voted 3–0 to carry the motion.
The proposed regulation would also call out exceptions (for licensees acting under another healing-arts board, chiropractic students in preceptorship under direct supervision, and purely administrative staff) and add citation language for unlicensed practice where an assistant exceeds the bounds of delegated care. Staff told the committee it will finalize text for presentation to the board, targeting the next board meeting in February.
