The Mission of the California Society of Pediatric Dentistry is to advocate optimal oral health and general welfare of infants, children, adolescents, and persons with special needs. The Society serves its members and represents the specialty of Pediatric Dentistry in California to achieve excellence in practice, education, and research.
To help accomplish this mission, the CSPD Board of Directors appointed
Dr. Paul A. Reggiardo, past-president of both the CSPD and AAPD, as their first Public Policy Advocate. This page contains some of his reports to CSPD's Board of Directors and members.
Regulatory Matters
Coronal Polishing and Oral Prophylaxis
When is coronal polishing considered an oral prophylaxis? The answer, of course, under the California Dental Practice Act, is never.
Section 1086 of the California Code of Regulations permits a Registered Dental Assistant to perform coronal polishing subject to certain conditions. One of these conditions is that the procedure must be performed under the direct supervision of a licensed dentist and only pursuant to the order, control and full professional responsibility of that supervising dentist. Under the provisions of direct supervision, the procedure must be checked and approved by the dentist prior to dismissal of the patient from the office. The Act states that "this procedure shall not be intended or interpreted as a complete oral prophylaxis (a procedure which can be performed only by a licensed dentist or registered dental hygienist)" and that the licensed dentist or a registered dental hygienist "shall determine that the teeth to be polished are free of calculus or other extraneous material prior to coronal polishing."
Section 1067 defines coronal polishing as a "procedure limited to the removal of plaque and stain from exposed tooth surfaces, utilizing an appropriate rotary instrument with rubber cup or brush and a polishing agent."
An oral prophylaxis is defined in the same section as "preventive dental procedures including complete removal of explorer-detectable calculus, soft deposits, plaque, stains, and the smoothing of unattached tooth surfaces. The objective of this treatment shall be creation of an environment in which hard and soft tissues can be maintained in good health by the patient."
Only a currently-licensed Registered Dental Assistant (RDA) may perform coronal polishing, which is considered part of an oral prophylaxis. Since January 1, 2006, all Registered Dental Assistants have been required to have completed an approved course in coronal polishing to obtain or renew their licenses.
Special Report:
Dental Assistant Licensure and Training
Background
Under law passed in 2004, and modified by the passage of additional legislation in 2006, dental assisting licensure categories and duties would have altered dramatically on January 1, 2008. Senate Bills 1048 and 1049, signed by the Governor in October, will delay implementation of the new licensing categories until January 1, 2010, giving CSPD members additional time to plan for these changes.
While some of the details of training and licensure by either formal education or by the work-experience pathway remain to be developed under the regulatory authority of the Dental Board of California, most aspects are reasonably firm. This report is intended to assist CSPD membership in preparing for the future. It should be noted that additional changes will occur in the Registered Dental Assistant in Extended Functions (RDAEF), Registered Restorative Assistant in Extended Functions (RRAEF) and Dental Hygienist categories which are beyond the scope of this report.
Current Dental Assisting Regulation
An unlicensed dental assistant is limited as to allowable duties, but requires no formal education or completion of coursework approved by the Dental Board of California (DBC). An unlicensed dental assistant successfully completing a Board-approved course in radiation safety may, under the direct supervision of the dentist, expose dental radiographs.
A Registered Dental Assistant (RDA) must successfully pass a written and a practical examination administered under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Dental Auxiliaries (COMDA). In order to qualify for the examination, a candidate must successfully complete a DBC-approved formal education program or present evidence of 12 months of paid work experience with a licensed dentist.
Since May of 2006, an RDA must present evidence to COMDA of having completed a course in radiation safety and a course in coronal polishing, either as part of a formal RDA education program or as a separate stand-alone course, for license renewal.
Future Dental Assisting Regulation
Effective January 1, 2010, dentists will be responsible for assuring that within a year of employment, all auxiliary personnel in their employ for 120 days, including unlicensed dental assistants, have completed DBC-approved courses in (1) Infection Control and (2) California Law, as well as a course in basic life support recognized by the American Red Cross or American Heart Association.
The RDA written and practical examinations, scheduled for elimination after June 2008, will continue to be administered. In addition, beginning January 1, 2010, separate written and practical examinations will be administered for each of the three new dental assisting categories: the Registered Orthodontic Assistant (ROA), the Registered Surgery Assistant (RSA), and the Registered Restorative Assistant (RRA). In these categories, several new duties are permitted. In order to qualify for each of the three new licensing examinations, a candidate must have successfully completed a DBC-approved formal educational program in one of the three specialty assisting areas or have completed 12 months (1600 hours) of registered work experience with a dentist meeting certain qualifications and paying certain fees set forth by the Dental Board of California. Among the qualifications is completion of a six hour course in teaching methodology, unless exempt by dental school faculty appointment or holding of a teaching credential. The dentist must register individually with the Board each candidate obtaining on-the-job training under his or her tutelage. A candidate for the work experience pathway to licensure may only qualify for one specialty assisting category at a time and must successfully pass the written and practical examination approved by the Board in order to obtain that specialty license.
As of January 1, 2010, a person may become an RDA by either completing a formal RDA educational program and passing a written and practical examination approved by the board, or by successfully completing the training for all three separate specialty dental assisting categories and passing the written and practical examinations for each.
Existing RDAs will only be permitted to renew their RDA licenses by obtaining coursework in the new duties established for all specialty categories (patient monitoring during sedation/general anesthesia, orthodontic bracket placement and removal, and application of pit and fissure sealants), with one exception. That exception is the adding of drugs, medications and fluids to IV lines. If RDAs in the future wish to perform this duty, they must first complete a separate course and obtain a certificate of completion from the course provider.
Questions may be directed to CSPD's Public Policy Advocate, Dr. Paul Reggiardo, at reggiardo@prodigy.net.
October 2007
Return to Top
The Consequences of Untreated Dental Disease in Children
The California Society of Pediatric Dentistry in collaboration with the California Dental Association has produced an advocacy binder dramatically illustrating The Consequences of Untreated Dental Disease in Children.
Designed for supporting CDA and CSPD efforts in promoting legislation and public policy which improve children’s oral health, the binder contains introductory information on the progressive and largely preventable nature of dental disease, full color illustrations of untreated pediatric dental conditions, and a Children’s Oral Health Fact Sheet
The binder is available for viewing and for downloading by CSPD members. (PDF Document, 1.2 MB)
Return to Top
School Entrance Oral Health Assessments
Groundbreaking legislation effective January 1, 2007 requires children entering public school for the first time in either kindergarten or first grade to present proof by May 31 of the school year of having obtained an oral health assessment. That assessment may be completed during the first year of school or any time in the 12 months prior to school enrollment.
CSPD, working with the California Dental Association, has long sought such regulation as a means of identifying children in need of oral health services and promoting the importance of oral health as an integral component of school readiness and ability to learn.
Dentists should be aware of the following provisions of the bill:
- Public schools will notify parents and guardians of the requirements imposed by law and provide a standardized form that can be used to record the results of the oral health assessment.
- Parents and guardians may be excused from compliance by indicating the assessment imposes an undue financial burden, cannot be completed because of a lack of access to a dentist or other licensed oral health professional, or because they choose to withhold consent.
- Assessments may be completed by any California-licensed Dentist, Registered Dental Hygienist, or Registered Dental Assistant acting under the direct supervision of the dentist.
It is important for dentists to understand the difference between a dental examination, which can be performed only by a licensed dentist, and an oral health assessment, which can be performed by a range of licensed dental professionals. An oral health assessment identifies obvious or suspected oral health conditions that require, or might require, examination by a dentist. A dental examination diagnoses dental conditions and forms the basis for treatment recommendations.
A dental examination conducted in a dental office during the first school year or in the 12 months prior to school enrollment more than meets the minimum standards of the assessment requirement.
The goal of this legislation is to establish a regular source of dental care (a dental home) for every child. The program will also identify children in need of further examination and dental treatment and will help in the identification of barriers to the delivery of dental care.
For additional information all located on this page, please use the appropriate links:
Questions concerning California Oral Health Assessments may be directed to CSPD Public Policy Advocate, Dr. Paul Reggiardo, at Reggiardo@prodigy.net or by phone at 714-848-0234.
Return to Top
Information on Oral Health Assessments
What Does the Law Require?
- Beginning January 1, 2007, schools must notify parents or guardians about this new requirement and provide information on the importance of oral health to overall health and school readiness. It also requires schools to provide enrollment information for government benefit programs such as Medi-Cal and Healthy Families.
- Children entering public school for the first time, in kindergarten or first grade, are instructed to have their oral health assessed by a dental professional by May 31st of the first school year. Oral health evaluations that occurred within the 12 months prior to school entry also meet this requirement.
- Parents may obtain a waiver of this requirement if they cannot find a dental professional to do the evaluation, the assessment poses an undue economic burden, or the parent chooses not to have their child's oral health evaluated.
- Schools must collect and aggregate specified data and school districts must forward specified data by December 31 of each year to their County Office of Education.
What is an Oral Health Assessment?
The assessment, or evaluation, can be met in many ways. It can be a complete examination and treatment plan performed by a dentist, or it can be a more basic oral health evaluation, such as a screening, which can be performed by a dentist, hygienist or a registered dental assistant with supervision.
How should an office respond when a parent calls requesting the required "oral health assessment" for their child?
If the child is already a patient of record, it should be a routine matter to schedule a dental examination for the child. The oral health assessment requirement is not intended to alter your usual office protocol with regard to new or recall examinations. The only "new" part of the visit is completion of the required "assessment form." The form is simply a data collection tool and requires information on the following four items:
- The date of the evaluation
- The presence (yes or no) of caries experience as evidenced by visible dental caries or dental restorations
- The presence (yes or no) of visible untreated dental caries
- Assignment to a category of treatment urgency as follows:
- Urgent (if the child experiences pain or there is evidence of dental infection)
- Early Dental Care (if caries appears visible without accompanying signs or symptoms or it appears the child would benefit from immediate sealant placement)
- No Obvious Problems (if the child's teeth appear to be visually healthy and there is no apparent reason for the child to be seen before the next routine check-up)
If the child is a patient-of-record and has had an examination within the last 12 months, the results of that previous examination will satisfy the requirement of the new law.
How should an office respond when the parent of a new patient calls making the same request?
As with all new patients, the child ideally should receive a comprehensive examination. In some instances, however, it may be a multi-step process before a child receives the desired exam. It is therefore important to develop a protocol when the parent questions the need to make an appointment for an examination, citing the request for "just an assessment."
Many factors may contribute to the parent's decision to schedule the recommended examination, including available insurance coverage, the parents' understanding of the difference between an assessment and an examination, and the parents' expectation that an assessment, or basic screening, is all the child needs. An office protocol should include a clear explanation of the differences between a basic screening and a comprehensive examination, so that the parent can make an informed decision.
If, after explaining the value of a comprehensive dental examination, the caller still requests only a screening assessment to meet the basic requirements of law, how might the office proceed?
When a dental examination is not feasible, the child will still benefit from the simple assessment intended to identify obvious unmet oral health needs and to provide a data collection tool for state-wide oral health planning. Therefore, CSPD encourages members to consider offering to screen the child and complete the mandated assessment form in the office without charge.
- If choosing to do a screening, rather than a comprehensive exam in the office, be very clear when the appointment is established that you will be conducting the screening, at no charge, as a public service. When the adult and child arrive, an In-Office Consent and Recommendation Form, very similar to the consent form used at school-based screenings, should be signed. This form will make it explicit that the child receiving the screening is not a patient-of-record and will establish the parameters of the free service you are providing. CSPD and CDA have jointly developed an In-Office Consent and Recommendation Form for use in the dental office which is available on the CSPD and CDA websites. This form should be filled-out and given to the parent, along with the state-mandated data collection form (which is returned to the school). The dentist is advised to keep a copy of these forms together in a separate file for a period of one year, after which they may be discarded.
- Providing an assessment in the dental office provides an opportunity for the parent to become educated about the condition of their child's oral health, the consequences if disease is not treated, and the benefits of ongoing care. The "screening" can become an invitation to establish a dental home for the child.
Return to Top
CSPD Members Play Critical Role
School Entrance Oral Assessments Up and Running
Under legislation long sought by CSPD and effective January 1 of this year, children enrolled in their first year of public school in either kindergarten or first grade are now required to obtain an assessment of their oral health as part of school readiness preparation. For children who already see a dentist and have established a dental home, compliance will be as simple as calling the office and requesting that the dentist fill-out and return the data collection form sent home by the school. Any dental examination conducted in the 12 months prior to the beginning of the school year will meet the assessment requirement, although dentists may wish to recommend a more recent examination when indicated in the best interests of the child. Parents have until May 31st to return the State’s data collection form to the school. While many schools districts are placing school information at the top of the form, dentists and parents may download and use the form available from the California Department of Education. A link to the California Department of Education website and a direct link to downloadable English and Spanish versions of the form are now available on the CSPD website (www.cspd).
For children who have not received a dental examination in the twelve months prior to school entrance, parents have several options. They may schedule a dental examination with a licensed dentist, they may arrange an oral assessment or screening evaluation by any licensed dental professional (a dentist, dental hygienist, or registered dental assistant under the direct supervision of the dentist), or they may request a waiver of the requirement. CSPD members have the opportunity to play a critical role in which decision is made by the parent.
The best decision for the child, and a significant intent of the legislation, is the establishment of a dental home through the scheduling of a comprehensive dental examination. When this is not possible or feasible, CSPD urges its members to consider providing a screening assessment in their office as a public service. It is important for both dentists and parents to understand the difference between a dental examination, which is a billable service and establishes the dental home, and a screening assessment which is not considered a billable service and only (1) collects the data required by the state concerning the incidence of treated and untreated dental caries and (2) identifies obvious or suspected conditions which require, or might require, examination and treatment by a dentist.
If a screening evaluation is conducted in the dental office it does not establish a dentist-patient relationship. Patients receiving such assessments do not become a patient-of-record and should not be expected to complete health histories or other office forms. To assist members providing these assessments, CSPD and CDA have developed a Consent and Recommendation Form for use in the dental office. The form provides for the consent of the parent or caregiver, explains the limitations and differences between an oral assessment and a comprehensive oral/dental examination, and provides a section in which the dentist can make recommendations concerning the child’s oral health. The form, in multiple languages, is downloadable from the CSPD website (www.cspd). It should be given to the parent or caregiver, along with the State data collection form, and a copy kept in the office for a period of one year. Oral evaluations performed in the dental office help parents meet the school requirement and serve as an introduction to the dental delivery system.
CSPD anticipates may school districts, especially those most impacted by oral health disparities, will work with local dentists and local component dental societies to establish school-based and school-linked oral health screenings to ensure pupils receive these assessments. Such screenings will provide an additional opportunity to create effective systems of triage and referral of children whose families experience barriers to dental care and the establishment of a dental home. CSPD encourages the participation of its members in these activities as well as in providing in-office assessments.
Ultimately, the success and survival of school-entrance oral health examinations and assessments will be judged by public compliance with the legislation. Parents may receive a waiver of the requirement by indicating the assessment poses an undue financial burden, cannot be completed because they are unable to locate a dental professional to perform the assessment, or by simply withholding consent. By facilitating the examination and assessment process, CSPD members make it less likely a parent will choose to use the waiver.
Paul Reggiardo, DDS
Public Policy Advocate
California Society of Pediatric Dentistry
February, 2007
Return to Top
Download Appropriate Forms
CSPD/CDA Developed
In-Office Consent for
Assessment and Recommendations |
State Required
Oral Health Assessment-Waiver Forms |
| |
|
Return to Top
Tips for Completing the State-Required
Oral Health Assessment Form
The state-required oral assessment form to be returned to the school is a simple data collection tool that requires the following four pieces of information.
- The date of the child's oral evaluation or examination, which may occur anytime during the first year of school or up to 12 months prior to school entrance.
- Is there evidence the child has experienced decay? The form asks if visible caries and/or fillings are present. If either or both are detected by visual or by radiographic examination, the YES box should be checked. If a child is found to have one or more untreated carious lesions, then he/she will automatically be marked positive in this section and the next.
- Is there evidence of untreated dental decay? If a dental examination is performed, the answer to this question is easily determined. When only a visual screening assessment is done, the dental professional must make an educated judgment. To standardize responses, it is recommended that if there appears to be as little as 0.5 mm of enamel loss and a brown discoloration of the occlusal or smooth enamel surface, the form should be marked YES.
- Is there a treatment urgency? The form provides three options:
- "Urgent" is indicated if there are signs or symptoms of pain, infection, or soft tissue swelling.
- "Early Dental Care" is indicated when dental caries is suspected or present without other accompanying signs or symptoms. Sealant indications such as deep fissured groves or while enamel demineralization also qualify the child for this designation.
- "No Obvious Problems Found" is indicated when the teeth appear visually sound and the child appears to need only routine dental examination.
Return to Top
California Legislature 2007-08
Second Regular Session
Bills of Interest to CSPD
April 25, 2008
| AB 2210 (Price) |
Dentistry: Emergency Services - This bill would amend the Dental Practice Act to allow a licensed dentist during a declared state of emergency to provide emergency medical care consistent with his or her dental education and emergency training.
|
| CSPD Position: |
Support
|
| AB 2229 (Huffman) |
Medi-Cal: Adult Dental Examinations for Residents of Long-Term Care Facilities - Existing law provides for only a single initial dental examination and no periodic dental examinations for adult Medi-Cal beneficiaries. This bill would reinstate an annual dental examination as a program benefit for adults residing in skilled nursing care facilities, so long as funds are appropriated in the annual budget.
|
| CSPD Position: |
Support |
| AB 2637 (Eng) |
Assisting Regulation and Licensure - Existing law until January 1, 2011, provides for the examination and initial licensing of Registered Dental Assistants, provided an application for such licensure is filed before September 1, 2009. This bill would extend these provisions until January 1, 2012, with respect to a person who files an application prior to September 1, 2009.
|
| CSPD Position: |
Watch |
| AB 2734 (Krekorian) |
Health Care Practitioners: Advertising - This bill would require health care providers, including dentists, to include their license number and contact information for the Board or Bureau which has jurisdiction of their license, on business cards and most advertising and promotional materials.
|
| CSPD Position: |
Oppose (unless amended) |
| AB 2890 (Duvall) |
School Finance: Categorical Block Grant Funding - This bill would consolidate numerous K-12 educational categorical funding programs into several clustered categorical block grants. Passage of the bill would eliminate the requirement for a school entrance oral health assessment from the education code.
|
| CSPD Position: |
Oppose
- View CSPD's Letter of Opposition (PDF Document, 67 KB) |
| SB 1178 (Aanestad) |
Dental Licensure: Registered Sex Offenders - Existing law requires the Dental Board of California to deny a dental license to an individual who is required to register as a sex offender under California, military or another state's law. This legislation would additionally require the DBC to deny licensure to individuals required to register as sex offenders under federal law and closes certain loopholes that presently allow reinstatement of licenses for sex offenders.
|
| CSPD Position: |
Support |
| SB 1387 (Padilla) |
Dental Service Plans: Overpayment Disputes - Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of health care services plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and the regulation of health insurance companies by the Department of Insurance. Both require internal mechanisms by managed care plans and private insurers to attempt to resolve payment disputes and each has an appeal process allowing review of the internal dispute resolution decision. This bill would standardize the appeal process of both agencies and would prohibit attempt to collect a contested overpayment from a provider until the entire dispute resolution process (private and governmental) has been exhausted.
|
| CSPD Position: |
Support |
| SB 1633 (Kuehl) |
Dental Service Credit Arrangements - This bill would prohibit certain credit practices by dental providers involving credit card arrangements, including accessing a line of credit before all services have been provided and arranging or referring for a line of credit when a patient is under the influence of local or general anesthesia.
|
| CSPD Position: |
Oppose, unless amended to apply only to abusive dental practice credit arrangements |
| SB 1634 (Steinberg) |
Congenital Orofacial Anomalies: Orthodontic Services - This bill would require health care service plan contacts and policies to cover orthodontic services deemed medically necessary in the treatment of cleft palate and related craniofacial anomalies.
|
| CSPD Position: |
Support |
Return to Top
Summary of the Meeting of the Dental Board of California
Prepared for the California Society of Pediatric Dentistry
March 6-7, 2008
The Dental Board of California met March 6-7, 2008, in Los Angeles. The following summarizes actions and issues coming before the Board pertinent to pediatric oral health
Dental Board Sunset
As an unintended consequence of the Governor's veto last year of SB 534, which would have created a new Dental Hygiene Committee of California, the Dental Board becomes inoperative July 1 of this year and its functions transferred to a bureau of the Department of Consumer Affairs. Examination, licensing, disciplinary and regulatory operations will transfer to the Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs until authority for a new Dental Board can be established by statute, probably effective January 1, 2009.
Comment: The Director of the Department has indicated current members of the Dental Board will be invited to serve in an advisory capacity to the new bureau. Their actions, however, will have only the force of recommendations to the Director of the Department and staffing changes will, in my opinion, result in less efficient and delayed processing of examination results, licensing requests, and disciplinary matters. It is unclear how the bureau will operate in the regulatory arena and what part the public will play in the interim process.
Licensure by Credential
On January 1, 2002, a "Licensure by Credential" (LBC) process became law, allowing dentists practicing in other states, and meeting certain criteria, to be granted a California dental license. Eventually, three "Licensure by Credential" pathways were established in statute, each with certain prerequisites as follows:
- Five years of clinical practice in another state
- Three years of clinical practice in another state and (a) an agreement to practice two years in California in a dental underserved area, (b) teach in a California dental school, or (c) be enrolled in graduate training in a CODA-accredited post-doctoral program in an ADA-recognized specialty area.
- License in another state and an agreement and contract to practice for two years in a qualified public health safety-net clinic or hospital in California or an agreement and contract to teach for two years in a California dental school.
Legislation also mandated the Dental Board to provide to the Legislature a report on the impact of the licensure by credential process on the availability of dentists practicing in "dental shortage" areas. The first report to the Legislature was recently completed and revealed the following regarding the period of January 1, 2003 - December 31, 2007:
- Of the total applications processed (1689), eight-nine percent (1506) were granted licenses
- Based on the practice address of record at the time the report was compiled, approximately sixty percent of LBC licensees had a primary address or practice location outside of California. Only 40% of LBC-licensees (612) registered a California practice address with the Board.
- Dentists granted LBC licenses through two-year dental shortage area practice represented only 1.5% (23) of the licenses granted. No dentists were granted licenses through two years of dental school teaching.
- Of the total number of dentists licensed by LBC, only 3% (46) practice in a dental shortage area.
Comment: For most observers, it is somewhat surprising that the majority of dentists holding a California license obtained by the LBC process do not practice in California. What is disappointing to those who supported an LBC pathway fostering practice in underserved areas and to underserved populations, is the small effect of this program.
Dental Assistant Training and Licensure
The Board reinforced the decision made at its January meeting to step-back from developing the regulations necessary to implement legislation passed in 2004, 2006 and 2007 that would, in 2010, change the current dental assisting licensure scheme by the establishment of new registered dental assisting categories and other changes. Instead, the Board indicated a desire to entertain an as yet undeveloped proposal acceptable to the profession, as represented by the California Dental Association, and by other communities of interest. CDA indicated it has begun just such a consensus-building process and would have available to the Board at its next meeting in June a proposal from which legislation could be considered. Several specialty organizations, including CSPD, the California Association of Orthodontists, and the California Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, offered public testimony in support of this approach.
Comment: There appears to be a general consensus on the Board and among most parties of interest that the proposed process and regulatory scheme is extremely problematic. A report of the Board's Licensure, Certification and Permits Committee indicates there are approximately 34,000 active dental licenses and only 23,000 active RDA licenses, a troubling ratio. I am among those who feel the proposed changes, if not significantly modified, will only heighten, not relieve, the problem of expanded function and a career ladder for dental assisting. CSPD will be involved in the development of the proposal to the Board and, in fact, has already made suggestions to the process.
In a separate action, the Board's Examination Committee again reported a 48% failure rate (3336 candidates) on the RDA written examination during the most recent six month period. In response, Board members expressed the opinion this was an unacceptable result, possibly indicating problems with the examination itself. By action of the Board, the Committee on Dental Auxiliaries (COMDA), which develops and administers the examination, was directed to investigate the situation and to report back to the Board in June.
Comment: Clearly, there is a problem of either training or testing with such a high failure rate that needs to be addressed. While some observers feel the problem may be one of language or linguistic challenge, others feel the problem goes to the deeper core of examination content and difficulty.
Continuing Education
Presently, courses and educational offerings automatically meeting the continuing education requirements for dental and auxiliary license renewal must be given under the auspices of a provider registered with the Dental Board of California. Although there is a process by which other courses may qualify for California continuing education credit, it is one of obscurity and complexity that is all but unused and which places the licensee at distinct risk if he or she does not obtain from the Board in advance of the license renewal approval of the offering. After considering presentations by representatives of the ADA-CERP and the AGD-PACE programs, the Board directed staff to draft for its consideration in June amendment to the Business and Professions Code that would recognize courses given by providers approved by CERP or PACE as qualifying for California continuing education credit.
Comment: PACE and CERP differ in their programs and each will present to the Board certain challenges. Both CERP and PACE approve providers, not courses. PACE has the ability to designate courses as California Category I or II, CERP does not. PACE requires each presenting entity (such as a component dental society) to have its own approval. CERP does not recognize individuals, only entities, as course providers. PACE approves individuals. If adopted, for CSPD this would mean that AAPD, which is a CERP provider, would no longer have to separately register as a Continuing Education Provider with the DBC.
General Anesthesia and Conscious Sedation
Following passage by the ADA House of Delegates in October 2007 of revisions to the ADA's Guidelines for the Use of Sedation and General Anesthesia by Dentists and Guidelines for Teaching Pain Control and Sedation to Dentists and Dental Students, the Board's Committee on General Anesthesia/Conscious Sedation proposed a review of the documents and a report to the Board on any implications to current law and regulation. That report was delivered to the Board, without recommendation for statutory or regulatory change.
Comment: The Committee reported it will continue to monitor progress of ADA plans for changes in airway management in 2009.
Return to Top
Other Advocacy News
Return to Top
