Optometry committee approves most continuing-education applications, tables one for duration discrepancy and denies one Kaiser-specific course

The California State Board of Optometry Practice & Education Committee on its final 2024 meeting approved a majority of submitted continuing-education courses, tabled one application over an apparent timing discrepancy, and declined CE credit for a course described as specific to Kaiser Permanente.

Committee members opened the agenda by approving draft minutes from the Oct. 11, 2024 meeting and then moved through grouped CE items. The chair (identified in the record as Speaker 2) grouped several sections so staff and members could vote efficiently; the committee unanimously approved items listed in sections 4a and 5a through 5i by roll-call votes.

The meeting turned to a single-course item, 5b1, when a committee member noted an inconsistency between the hours requested and the itinerary. "The only thing I had is requesting 2 hours general, but on the itinerary, it had the time was from 10:10 o'clock to 10:40," the member said, noting that a full hour of CE requires 50 minutes of instruction. Staff responded that the listing appeared to contain an error and recommended follow-up with the course submitter; the committee tabled 5b1 pending that confirmation.

A separate concern arose about item 5j1. Member Pruitt said, "On this one, based on the slides, it seems like it wasn't open to all optometrists. It was presented at a Luxottica meeting." Staff acknowledged the question and committed to asking the submitter whether the presentation was limited to a company meeting before the committee returns the item for approval.

Members also questioned whether one submission — item 5k4 — was appropriate for CE credit because its content appeared specific to Kaiser Permanente's internal workflow. One member summarized the concern: the presentation "was kinda specific to Kaiser," and several members agreed it read more like a business workflow than broadly applicable continuing education. The committee approved items 5k1–5k3 and then voted to deny CE credit for 5k4.

Throughout the meeting staff repeatedly confirmed there were no public commenters either at the physical meeting location or on the Webex platform. Multiple agenda items were grouped for efficiency; most passed on unanimous voice or roll-call votes recorded as "aye" from the three voting members identified in the record.

The committee ended the meeting by asking staff to explore two procedural follow-ups: adding a field on CE application forms to indicate how an event was advertised or whether it was open to all practitioners, and revisiting a categorization scheme for CE (referenced informally as similar to New Jersey's) to help standardize course listings.

Staff will return to the committee with answers about the 5b1 timing discrepancy and whether the Luxottica-hosted presentation was open to all optometrists. The committee adjourned with holiday greetings.