Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Anesthesia Evaluators topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Dental Board approves 19 anesthesia and moderate‑sedation evaluators

Dental Board of California · November 13, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Dental Board of California individually approved 19 clinicians to serve as evaluators for general anesthesia, medical general anesthesia or moderate‑sedation permits after staff presented inspection and evaluator needs. Each nomination was moved, seconded, and passed by roll‑call vote.

The Dental Board of California on Nov. 7 approved 19 clinicians to serve as evaluators for general anesthesia, medical general anesthesia and moderate‑sedation permits, expanding the pool available to conduct site inspections and competency evaluations.

Jessica Olney, manager of the board’s anesthesia unit, told the board the motion to credential a large group of evaluators was intended to maintain and grow the evaluator pool after several years of changes to sedation permits. She opened the credentialing item by noting the unit’s statistics and the need to keep a sufficient evaluator roster for on‑site inspections and evaluations.

Board President Alan Felsenfeld moved each nomination and members seconded them one at a time; roll‑call votes were recorded for each motion and the board approved every nominee. The approvals included both clinicians previously credentialed under older conscious‑sedation rules and new applicants who met the anesthesia unit’s vetting requirements.

The board and staff discussed administrative matters around sampling matching evaluator specialties to practice types and confirming application details; staff said they contact applicants to verify entries when application fields appear inconsistent. No public comments were received on the individual motions.

The board did not change the substantive criteria for evaluations at this meeting; members emphasized the procedural requirement to approve each evaluator individually and the importance of a well‑qualified evaluator pool for patient safety.

The motions were procedural approvals; each passed on a recorded roll‑call vote. Board President Felsenfeld thanked staff and the unit for their work in vetting applicants.