Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Intervention Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board staff outline more flexible rules for "mental-health-only" participants in intervention program
Summary
At a May 27 open session, Board of Registered Nursing staff told the Intervention Evaluation Committee they can tailor monitoring and return-to-work rules for nurses with mental-health conditions who do not have substance-use disorders, aiming to boost enrollment and shorten time off work while maintaining public safety.
The Board of Registered Nursing—Intervention Evaluation Committee heard May 27 that staff plan to treat "mental-health-only" participants differently from nurses with substance-use disorders, allowing more flexibility in testing, monitoring and program length so some participants could return to practice sooner.
Loretta Melby, identified in the meeting as the executive officer, told the committee that a nurse with a mental-health condition but no substance-use disorder "does not fall out of the uniform standards," meaning the three-year sobriety requirement does not apply and IEC members may customize monitoring, testing and timelines for return to work. "Because this person does not have any issues with substance use, they fall out of the uniform standards," Melby said.
The change is intended to make the intervention program a better match for nurses whose competencies were affected by mental-health issues rather than substance use. Melby said the committee can order earlier work re-entry, spot or no drug testing as appropriate, and tailor the length of program participation; for some mental-health-only participants she said a one- or two-year pathway, or even shorter monitoring, could be appropriate.
Committee members asked for data and operational details. Melby said the program currently has "just over a hundred total" participants and acknowledged limited data specifically on mental-health-only participants because those nurses have historically chosen probation or license surrender instead of intervention. She said the board hopes revamped outreach and a new "concierge" outreach process, in which staff proactively call individuals with complaints, will increase intervention enrollment and produce better data.
Members discussed support groups and workplace monitoring. Melby said nursing support groups vary in focus and that mental-health-only participants can be directed to profession-specific groups or other health-care-related support groups if the standard groups do not meet their needs. She also described work-site monitoring tools (including at least weekly checks in some cases) and said the committee will review "work approvals and restrictions" in a forthcoming training to better balance public safety and earlier return to practice.
Staff noted recent outreach activity: 237 outreach materials were emailed in the second quarter of 2026, and the IEC—meets with Premier Health Group for training and program education. The committee was asked to review the IEC guide and advise staff on regulatory or informational changes; the staff cited California Code of Regulations, Title 16, sections 1446—1449 as the current governing guidance for admission and program criteria.
A separate procedural motion approved the prior meeting—minutes: Dr. Barry Levine moved, Joan Taylor seconded; on roll call Taylor and Levine voted yes and Dr. Carol Stanford abstained, and the motion passed.
The committee recessed to closed session at 9:52 a.m. to discuss intervention applicants and participants under Business and Professions Code section 2770.10 and Government Code section 11126.
What's next: staff will present a training on work approvals and restrictions at the next IEC meeting and continue the concierge outreach effort to invite more nurses into the intervention program. The next IEC meeting was noted as scheduled for Wednesday, July 29, 2026.
