Higher standards of competency are achieved by definite callibration and consistency.

I suggest making a level 2 or 3 or a level 2a and 2b. For instance Iowa has different levels of expanded functions and different requirements. Their level 1 expanded functions can do among other place gingival retraction, make temporaries, take final impressions, preliminary c harting etc. Only their level 2 expanded functions can place fillings. 

See link here: 

https://dentalboard.iowa.gov/practitioners/expanded-functions/dental-assistants-expanded-functions

I think if you made a level that allowed dental assistants to be expanded functions to what most dentist utilize them for, like final impressions, temporaries, cord packing etc and make this a smaller course. 

Most dentist do not want their assistants placing fillings. So having this as a separaste options like Iowa means a lot more assistants would be able to get certified in what dentist wants them to do. Making the training requirements so hard because they need to know how to place fillings still keeps it too hard to get them certified and does not solve the underlying problem. You need to divive it up into basic and advanced expanded functions to make it functional. 

As a CDA and educator of a high school level DA 1 program, I am happy there is room for advancement for Virginia dental assistants.  There is value in quality education; it should result in quality patient care.  

Specific didactic course work and clinical training should absolutely be required in a DA II program.  The combination of didactic work, practice on manikin simulators, and on consenting patients with a 'calibrated' dentist in the treatment room makes good sense.  At a glance, the proposed changes seem specific enough to encourage a solid, competency-based program.  

However, I am not in favor of shortening the hours of the documented training just to get a higher quantity of DA II's.  Lessening requirements doesn't seem to be an ideal solution to the burden of cost.  In fact, a less expensive education could ultimately cost the patient.  This, in turn, would cost the profession.  

With over 35 years of experience as a dental assistant, I have learned that there is no substitute for quality.  The dental profession is not the only profession that struggles to maintain a good balance of quality and quantity.  But, our patients depend on us to do the very best we can.  It is the responsibility of us, as professionals, to ensure they get just that!  

How does Dentist become calibrated

.The DAII role is not utilized in most of South Central Virginia. I am an educator of a high school DA program and have been for 5 years. I have also practiced hygiene in various areas all over Virginia. The students that graduate from the high school program does not have a problem getting hired here due to not being Certified or DAII, in fact, most DDS in this area do not pay for Certified or expanded DA's in this area.  

I feel like a DAII may be considered for largely populated areas of Virginia like Northern VA or maybe the Tidewater area (although I know several DA's there that are neither Certified or DAII and have no intention of becoming so because it will not be reflected in pay for them).

I think DAII should be competency based because people work at different paces and levels and their competency of needed requirements may be achieved at different levels.

I also feel like this is a moot point for most of Virginia until Certification is more recognized all over the state, then having another level attainable would be worth the effort for a Dental Assistant in this state.

As an RDH and instuctor of a high school entry level DA program, I absolutely agree with the regulation proposed for the competency based instruction for DA II's. Most of the dental healthcare team have all had competency based instruction throughout their educational experiences. I do think this is the best way to show that you are competent to do the procedures you are allowed to do in your profession. I have seen a lot of students who do well on the didactic portion of their training, but not so well on the clinical aspect.

I do not agree with shortening the hours in order to get more DA II's faster. I think patients deserve the best quality care they can get, and cutting corners by shortening the hours in my opinion would not be in the best interest of the patient. 

With over 40 years in the dental field, holding jobs as receptionist, dental assistant, office manager, and registered dental hygienist, I have never thought compromising quality for quantity has ever paid off in the long term.  We are living in a society that alot of people are interested in taking the short cuts to complete the task sooner. Is this in the best interest of our profession? Is this in the best interest of our patients?  I say no.