SB 796 amends two sections of the California Health and Safety Code to make the Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA) the authorizing entity for the optional first-aid and CPR skills listed in Title 22, section 100027.03 when the practitioner is employed by a state agency. The bill also directs EMSA to develop, implement, and monitor policies, protocols, and quality assurance/quality improvement (QA/QI) measures to support safe and effective use of those skills.
The change centralizes authorization for state-employed lifeguards, firefighters, and peace officers that are already required to receive first-aid and CPR training. For agencies, medical directors, and training providers, the bill creates a new state-level oversight role and associated operational demands — from standards implementation to program monitoring and recordkeeping — while leaving baseline training requirements and refresher intervals intact in existing law.
At a Glance
What It Does
Designates EMSA as the authorizing body for optional first-aid and CPR skills in Title 22, section 100027.03 for state-employed lifeguards, firefighters, and peace officers, and requires EMSA to adopt and monitor QA/QI policies and protocols to ensure safe use of those optional skills.
Who It Affects
State-employed ocean/public beach/public pool lifeguards, state firefighters (excluding primarily clerical staff), and state peace officers covered by Penal Code section 13518; the Emergency Medical Services Authority; state agencies that employ those personnel; and entities that provide required training.
Why It Matters
The bill replaces local medical-authorizer roles for state employees with statewide oversight, creating standardized authority and accountability across state agencies while concentrating responsibility — and the implementation burden — at EMSA.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Under current law those lifeguards, firefighters, and peace officers identified in Sections 1797.182 and 1797.183 must receive first-aid and CPR training that meets standards prescribed by EMSA; refresher training is required on a periodic basis. SB 796 keeps those training standards and timing requirements but changes who signs off on the optional, more advanced first-aid and CPR skills when the responder works for a state agency.
Instead of a local medical director or local EMS agency serving as the authorizer for those optional skills, EMSA takes on that role for state-employed personnel.
The bill requires EMSA not only to be the authorizing entity but also to create and run QA/QI processes for these optional skills. That includes developing policies and protocols, implementing monitoring and improvement measures, and exercising oversight to ensure that state employees who are allowed to perform optional interventions are trained, tested, and practicing safely.
For peace officers, the statute continues to require that EMSA consult with the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) when setting training standards.Implementation will mean a practical handoff: EMSA must translate Title 22’s list of optional skills into state-level authorization workflows, define the QA/QI metrics it will use, and set up monitoring and reporting channels with the employing state agencies and training providers. The bill preserves existing provisions that allow EMSA to designate public or nonprofit agencies to deliver required training at no cost to the trainee, and it preserves the statutory definitions of "lifeguard" and "firefighter."Operationally, the change centralizes decision-making for state employees but leaves local agencies in place for non-state employers; the result is a patchwork where authorization follows the employer’s status rather than the skill set or the setting where the skill is used.
The practical questions — who funds EMSA’s new monitoring role, how QA/QI will be measured, and how EMSA will coordinate with local medical directors and POST — are left for implementation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 796 amends Health and Safety Code Sections 1797.182 (lifeguards and firefighters) and 1797.183 (peace officers) to change the authorizing entity for optional first-aid and CPR skills when the employee is a state worker.
For state-employed personnel, EMSA becomes the authorizing body for the optional skills enumerated in Title 22, section 100027.03.
EMSA must develop, implement, and monitor policies, protocols, and QA/QI measures aimed at ensuring the safe and effective use of those optional skills.
Existing training timing remains: required completion within one year of hire for lifeguards and firefighters, refreshers at least every three years for those groups, and periodic refresher or testing intervals for peace officers as determined by EMSA.
The statute preserves EMSA’s authority to designate public or nonprofit providers to deliver the training at no cost to trainees, maintaining the existing training-provider model for required courses.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
State authorization and QA/QI for lifeguards and firefighters
This section covers ocean, public beach, and public swimming pool lifeguards and most firefighters. The amendment makes EMSA the authorizer for the optional first-aid and CPR skills listed in Title 22, section 100027.03 whenever the lifeguard or firefighter is employed by a state agency. The section retains the timing and refresher obligations (completion within one year of hire; refreshers at least every three years) and continues to allow EMSA to assign training delivery to public or nonprofit entities and require that training be provided without cost to the trainee. Practically, this creates a single point of authorization for state employers while leaving local authorization intact for non-state employers.
State authorization and QA/QI for peace officers
This provision applies to peace officers described in Penal Code section 13518. It mirrors the change in 1797.182 by directing EMSA to act as the authorizer for optional Title 22 skills when the officer is a state employee. The section keeps consultation with POST on training standards and retains EMSA’s discretion to set the periodic interval for refresher training or testing. The amendment therefore centralizes the authorization decision for state peace officers while preserving the collaborative standard-setting role of POST.
What counts as an "optional skill" and how EMSA must oversee them
The bill explicitly ties authorization to the optional skills already listed in Title 22, which are typically higher-level interventions that require documented competence and medical oversight. EMSA’s new duties go beyond merely signing off: it must create policies and protocols and implement QA/QI activities to monitor safe use. That means EMSA will need to define competency verification, reporting requirements, monitoring frequencies, and corrective-action processes — tasks that previously would have been handled at the local medical director level for non-state employers.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State-employed lifeguards, firefighters, and peace officers — Gain a single, standardized authorizing authority and statewide QA/QI expectations that can create consistency in what optional skills they may perform across agencies.
- Members of the public served by state agencies — Potentially benefit from more uniform standards, oversight, and quality controls for advanced first-aid interventions provided by state responders.
- Training providers designated by EMSA (public or nonprofit) — Stand to gain clearer, uniform curriculum and authorizing standards when serving state-agency trainees, simplifying program design and credentialing.
Who Bears the Cost
- State agencies that employ affected personnel — Face new operational and administrative obligations to coordinate with EMSA on authorization, training documentation, and QA/QI reporting, and may need to redirect funding or staff time to comply.
- Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA) — Will incur the implementation burden of authorizing optional skills and building a QA/QI regime, which requires staff time, expertise, and likely new processes or systems.
- Local medical directors and local EMS agencies — Lose some authorization responsibilities for state employees, creating potential institutional and procedural friction and possible duplication where authority overlaps.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between safety through centralized, uniform oversight and the administrative and capacity costs of concentrating authorization at the state level: standardization can raise baseline quality and consistency, but it shifts personnel, funding, and coordination burdens to EMSA and state employers while reducing the flexibility and local medical control that local EMS agencies and medical directors currently exercise.
The bill centralizes authorization and oversight for a discrete set of optional skills without providing implementation detail or dedicated funding. That creates at least three practical risks: EMSA may lack the staff, technical capacity, or budget to develop meaningful QA/QI systems quickly; state agencies will need to rework internal training and credential-tracking processes to feed EMSA’s oversight; and coordination lines between EMSA, POST, local EMS agencies, and local medical directors could become congested, producing delays in authorization or inconsistent application during the transition.
None of these operational questions are answered in the text, leaving implementation to guidance and interagency agreements.
There are also liability and scope questions. Moving authorization to the state authority changes the locus of medical control for state employees, which can affect malpractice exposure, scope-of-practice determinations, and incident review processes.
The statute references Title 22’s optional skills but does not amend Title 22 itself; that separation means disagreements about what constitutes safe use or required supervision will be resolved through policy and practice rather than statutory clarity. Finally, the bill preserves different refresher and testing schedules for different groups (three-year refreshers for lifeguards and firefighters vs. EMSA-determined intervals for peace officers), which could produce uneven credential currency across responder types.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.