Council backs legislative proposal to clarify infection-control and radiation-safety course rules for dental assistants

The Dental Assisting Council on Feb. 6 approved a motion to recommend that the Dental Board submit a legislative proposal to amend multiple Business and Professions Code provisions governing infection-control and radiation-safety courses for dental assistants.

Council staff presented a revised legislative proposal received by council members the day before the meeting. The revised proposal would amend Business and Professions Code sections 1725 and 1750 (as cited in meeting materials), and 1753.52, and addresses the statutory infection-control course created last year (section 1755). Staff said the proposal narrows the new statutory course pathway to focus on unlicensed dental assistants, establishes an application and board-approval process for electronic course delivery, models director/faculty and laboratory requirements on existing regulation language, and adds student-protection provisions for electronic instruction. Staff also proposed adding a statutory approval pathway for a radiation-safety course to mirror regulatory protections and, later, to allow regulatory cleanup.

Council member Kara Miyazaki moved to recommend the legislative proposal for submission to the board; Smith seconded. The council voted in favor on a roll-call vote. Board staff recorded the motion as passed.

The discussion before the vote highlighted several substantive concerns and clarifications stakeholders requested: whether the statutory text should permit all or only some components (didactic vs. laboratory) to be delivered electronically; whether RDA licensure applicants who graduate from an approved educational program should be subject to the same infection-control pathway as on-the-job-trained dental assistants; and whether currently board-approved infection-control course providers would need to reapply to be approved under the new statutory pathway.

Tina Valerie, chief of the Dental Assisting Unit and Program Compliance, told the council that current infection-control course providers (approved under the existing CCR provision cited in staff materials) would need to submit a separate application to demonstrate compliance with the new statutory requirements if they sought approval to offer the new statutory electronic 6-hour didactic / 2-hour laboratory course. Stakeholders seeking expedited availability of board-approved online courses asked for clear grandfathering language and for staff to consider whether employers could be given a short window to document efforts to enroll new hires in an approved course if immediate board-approved online options are not yet available.

Stakeholders expressed mixed views. The California Dental Association (CDA) supported steps to allow electronic course approval but asked for employer-protection language allowing up to 90 days for completion in some circumstances and for guidance to employers when course seats are not immediately available. Representatives of the Dental Assisting Alliance and other provider organizations asked for explicit grandfathering of existing course providers or an expedited application pathway.

The motion the council approved directs staff to forward the recommended legislative proposal to the board for consideration. Staff emphasized that, if the Legislature enacts changes, some regulatory provisions could later be repealed or harmonized with the statute. The council did not finalize specific statutory text at the meeting; it recommended the proposal for board consideration and further stakeholder review.