Dentistry: dental assistants: infection control course.
If enacted, AB873 would modify the local regulatory framework surrounding dental assistant training, particularly in the domain of infection control. Employers would now bear the responsibility for ensuring their staff's compliance with training requirements, thus potentially reducing barriers to employment in areas where training resources are scarce. The bill also outlines provisions for technological support and requires that courses be continuously evaluated to meet set standards, ensuring the quality and relevance of the educational materials provided.
Assembly Bill 873, introduced by Assembly Member Alanis, aims to amend the existing provisions regarding infection control training for dental assistants within California's Dental Practice Act. The bill seeks to alleviate current requirements that mandate unlicensed dental assistants to complete a specific eight-hour course in infection control before performing responsibilities that expose them to potentially infectious materials. In recognition of challenges related to course availability, especially in rural areas, AB873 proposes to shift the responsibility of course completion to employers, who must ensure that an assistant who has been employed continuously for 90 days completes the training within a year of their employment.
The legislative discussions around AB873 indicate a mix of support and concern. Proponents of the bill argue that it addresses critical workforce shortages and streamlines training processes, making it easier for dental practices—especially in underserved regions—to maintain staffed operations. Conversely, some critics worry that relaxing training mandates could compromise the quality of care provided by dental assistants and expose patients to increased health risks due to inadequate training in infection control protocols.
The most notable point of contention centers around the balance between ensuring public safety through rigorous training and providing realistic pathways for employment in a field where there is already a shortage of adequately trained professionals. Advocates contend that enhanced local oversight by employers could mitigate the risks associated with less stringent individual training requirements. However, opponents highlight potential pitfalls in fragmented training standards that could arise from the bill's implementation.