In the August 1995 issue, we published a letter to the editor from Carol Weldin, who also happens to be the author of this month?s cover story. Unfortunately, we omitted a key phrase from the letter, rendering her message unclear. In describing how state practice acts govern hygienists practicing in a veterinary setting, she offered the example of California.
If you were confused when reading the letter, the sentence should have read (missing phrase italicized), OFor example, the current Veterinary Practice Act for the state of California states, Oprocedures such as prophylaxis may be performed by Unregistered Assistants (which RDHs are classified as); however, such procedures are to be performed under the direct supervision of the DVM (Doctor of Veterinary Medicine) or the AHT (Animal Health Technician).?O We regret the error.