Drug testing in the workplace (remote deployment)

[tniuqs]

The issue I have is this:

If the Paramedic (or other EMS personnel) is the 'tester', then the 'testee' becomes the patient. Wouldn't the findings be then considered privileged under HIPAA guidelines?

If they are, then the only way that they could be released is with the patient's consent or a court order

Thanks for playing ... no HIPAA here, thats a YALL thingy its "Persons In Care Act", "Health Care Information Act" and FOIP ... thats Freedom of Information and Protection act (commonly referred to as F**K O** Its Private)te he.

But the point you did keep up was the "testee" is the patient and similar rules of engagement as HIPPA or as HIPPO as Dust likes to refer ...

cheers

[rock_shoes]

BRAVO !

Where is the line drawn ?

A controlled Diabetic ?

A controlled Epileptic ?

Just who is the judge ?

Remember this a sub contracted Safety person with absolutely no medical background and many times looking to protect the employer ?

Exactly. I know I draw my line at conducting drug testing. I will not risk my License/Registration on behalf of some sawed off little man wearing red safety coveralls (just picturing the last safety consultant I dealt with). Breaching my professional ethics to make someone else’s life easier is not on my agenda.

I particularly like the following paragraph from your link Squint:

Other approaches to ensure workers are fit for work are preferable. Supervisors can be trained to identify behavioural symptoms that can affect workplace safety. For example, the Ontario Law Reform Commission has recommended using performance tests that can directly evaluate psychomotor performance. Performance can be affected by a number of factors besides drug use, including fatigue or stress.5 Employee Assistance Programs can help employees receive treatment for substance abuse problems, which can assist employees to deal with personal problems that might affect their work performance.6 In comparison to drug testing programs, these are approaches with little controversy.

Drug testing is not a substitute for a good accident prevention program.

Drug Testing in the Canadian Workplace

The line in red really says it all. Very little of the “SAFETY” industry as it applies to “Oil and Gas” in BC and Alberta has anything to do with actually keeping workers safe. It’s all about litigation mitigation and appearing to practice “beyond compliance.”

[tniuqs]

Agreed:

But I will do DOA testing .. but for medical information ONLY.

cheers

[Just Plain Ruff]

To me, if I'm taking some medication that might make the drug test come back false positive then it is incumbent upon me to notify the tester and or employer what I am taking.

If you are taking meds that are going to bring a false positive and you refuse the test just because of that, well that's a stupid reason to refuse.

The bottom line is this.

If you are not taking the drugs of abuse then why are you worrying? If you are clean then take the test.

I know it sucks, but what's more important, your pride or your job? To me it's a no brainer.

Now if the shoe is on the otehr foot and you are taking the drugs of abuse they are testing for and you don't have a script for the narc's then I don't want you working for or with me. Simple end of story.

If you come back positive and don't have validation of why you come back positive such as a valid prescription then you are out of there.

Plus if you come back positive for a medicine that can impair you and you didn't let me as the employer know, then you are gone too.

[Happiness]

Personally I don't agree with drug testing at all and here is one reason why?

As a Bean counter also I am the Administrator of our medical benifit packages. At one time the employee's use to bring in the reciepts for reimburstment and I would send them out with my Signature on the form. All of sudden it becomes the responibility of the employee a few years ago. I called the carrier and asked why the change and it was explained to me "If there is someone that has Knowledge of medications and discovers that someone is take AIDS drugs, there is the posibility that the employee could be targeted for dismissal based on that knowledge"

The only time I would agree that someone needs drug testing is if they are dead, or OD'ing and only in a hospital setting.

If you suspect that someone is on drug's then it should be mentioned somewhere along the line but that is a moral obligation not a legal one.

[tniuqs]

To me, if I'm taking some medication that might make the drug test come back false positive then it is incumbent upon me to notify the tester and or employer what I am taking.

If you are taking meds that are going to bring a false positive and you refuse the test just because of that, well that's a stupid reason to refuse.

The bottom line is this.

If you are not taking the drugs of abuse then why are you worrying? If you are clean then take the test.

I know it sucks, but what's more important, your pride or your job? To me it's a no brainer.

Now if the shoe is on the otehr foot and you are taking the drugs of abuse they are testing for and you don't have a script for the narc's then I don't want you working for or with me. Simple end of story.

If you come back positive and don't have validation of why you come back positive such as a valid prescription then you are out of there.

Plus if you come back positive for a medicine that can impair you and you didn't let me as the employer know, then you are gone too.

ps Ruff its quite clear from the statistics that BOOZE is the biggest DOA in North America, kills more people, destroys more lives and just in association with an Alcoholic, Hospitalizations and Family problems +++++++ and I am not asked to test for that !

Personally I don't agree with drug testing at all and here is one reason why?

As a Bean counter also I am the Administrator of our medical benifit packages. At one time the employee's use to bring in the reciepts for reimburstment and I would send them out with my Signature on the form. All of sudden it becomes the responibility of the employee a few years ago. I called the carrier and asked why the change and it was explained to me "If there is someone that has Knowledge of medications and discovers that someone is take AIDS drugs, there is the posibility that the employee could be targeted for dismissal based on that knowledge"

The only time I would agree that someone needs drug testing is if they are dead, or OD'ing and only in a hospital setting.

If you suspect that someone is on drug's then it should be mentioned somewhere along the line but that is a moral obligation not a legal one.

Edited July 19, 2010 by tniuqs

[Just Plain Ruff]

You missed my point. Maybe I didn't make it clear

If you are taking a substance that might impair your judgement and you have a script for it then your employer deserves to know.

Yes 8mg of codeine isn't much but some people are impaired by only 8mg. If you are treating a patient and something goes wrong and the defense attorneys get ahold of the info that you were taking codeine then they are going to tear your credibility apart.

Your employer has a right to know what meds you are taking if they could cause impairment or problems. I don't expect anyone to agree with me here on this but you owe it to your employer to let them know if you are taking a narcotic (prescribed) while you are working.

Wouldn't you want to know if the paramedic you are being taken care of is drug free? I certainly hope so.

My other stance is that if you are taking a drug that you did not get a prescription for then you don't need to be working while on it nor do I want you working with me while you are on it.

And further more, NO I do not want to be working with you when you've had 8mg or 2mg of codeine. You have taken a narcotic and you should not be working. That's my stance, I'm sticking to it.

Quote

Oh so I take 8 mgs of codeine for a sore back and you refuse to work with that person ... LOL foolish beyond rational thought process.

Why is that foolish beyond rational thought process????

If you have narcotics in your system you should NOT be working. Period.... end of story. If the employer OK's it then fine, they take that responsibility but if you are taking a narcotic and you make a mistake and I knew about it then it's my ass on the line also. If I didn't know about it that's another story but Yes I would refuse to work with that person, I have refused to work with someone who took a vicodin or t-3. Did I make friends and enemies YEP but my financial future relies on me to make the right decisions and my moral compass shows that someone who is taking a narcotic is definately someone I don't want to work with on the shift.

Maybe the narcotic doesn't affect them at all but I'd prefer to be working with a drug free partner.

LIke it not, my personal preferences are not the same as others on this board.

Let me ask this question, do you want a paramedic that just took a Vicodin or 8mg's of codeine taking care of you?

The alcohol discussion is a moot point - I don't want a partner who has been drinking prior to my shift to work either.

Would you do a DOA ... thats: drugs of abuse testing ie urine dip after you taken a History and an done a complete Physical Examination ?

Then requesting the patient to "volunteer" to provide a sample with the understanding that the "worker" would be dismissed and loose his position based on refusal of providing a sample.

This after an EMS professional has obtained verbal consent "post incident" and then to release the sample of urine and "test strip" to an prime contractor's safety person ?

Comments please.

Maybe I'm confused

Is the paramedic in question the one who is being tested or is the paramedic in quesion the one doing the testing?

Second, doesn't the testee understand via the policy and procedure manual that if they are to be tested and they refuse to be tested that they will be fired? Surely They have been told that via the policy and procedure manual.

Or am I reading it wrong and is the paramedic in question the tester and the Testee?

For a remote post like remote deployment I can see this happeing but isn't the test and the ramificatiosn for refusing said test written out in the policy and procedure manual?

[tniuqs]

You missed my point. Maybe I didn't make it clear

If you are taking a substance that might impair your judgement and you have a script for it then your employer deserves to know.

Yes 8mg of codeine isn't much but some people are impaired by only 8mg. If you are treating a patient and something goes wrong and the defense attorneys get ahold of the info that you were taking codeine then they are going to tear your credibility apart.

Your employer has a right to know what meds you are taking if they could cause impairment or problems. I don't expect anyone to agree with me here on this but you owe it to your employer to let them know if you are taking a narcotic (prescribed) while you are working.

Wouldn't you want to know if the paramedic you are being taken care of is drug free? I certainly hope so.

My other stance is that if you are taking a drug that you did not get a prescription for then you don't need to be working while on it nor do I want you working with me while you are on it.

And further more, NO I do not want to be working with you when you've had 8mg or 2mg of codeine. You have taken a narcotic and you should not be working. That's my stance, I'm sticking to it.

This thread is not about your personal moral stance on working with a partner or yourself working , its about a Paramedic being asked to do drug testing in the workplace based upon a safety persons arbitrary choice to test a worker because he had a slip and fell on his arm or whatever .. this is an infringement on the rights of the worker and my rights to refuse to do drug testing and resultant legal liability.

ps 8 mgs of codeine is used and is more effective as a treatment for diarrhea, 10 to 20 is used as an antitussive. Prescription in Canada for codeine starts at 15 mgs !

Let me ask this question, do you want a paramedic that just took a Vicodin or 8mg's of codeine taking care of you?

I have no issue with that .. if the Paramedic has pain (sore back comes to mind) and is not impaired whats the problem ... ?

The alcohol discussion is a moot point - I don't want a partner who has been drinking prior to my shift to work either.

But we all have and its not moot at all its the biggest exponentially proportional DOA in North American society ! I don't know where you work the streets but about 60% of my call volume HAS booze involved one way or another.

Edited July 19, 2010 by tniuqs

[Just Plain Ruff]

This thread is not about your personal moral stance on working with a partner or yourself working , its about a Paramedic being asked to do drug testing in the workplace based upon a safety persons arbitrary choice to test a worker because he had a slip and fell on his arm or whatever .. this is an infringement on the rights of the worker and my rights to refuse to do drug testing and resultant legal liability.

ps 8 mgs of codeine is used and is more effective as a treatment for diarrhea, 10 to 20 is used as an antitussive. Prescription in Canada for codeine starts at 15 mgs !

No need to get all pissed off Tnuigs, never meant to get you so worked up.

The employee fell and hurt himself. He gets a drug screen based on I would assume the policy of the company Right?

What is the issue here then? I"m not following why you are so worked up about it.

You as the paramedic were called on to do the drug screen after you did the history and physical and you were asked to do the drug screen. Is there someplace in the policy manual that says that you have to also do the test? If there is a place in the manual then I think you are stuck with doing the drug screen. IF you refuse and the manual says you will be terminated then I guess there is your answer.

[Biker911]

Worked in BC with a an Advanced first-aider/safety officer whose sub-contracted company did drugs tests. When I refused to test any employee's, she took over the responsibility. I treated a pt with severe back pain with endocet (Medical directors orders). Hid personal Physician had previously prescribed endocet but he did not have his script with him. When I kept him off the balance of his day, she went to his room and drug tested. Of course, he was positive and she put in her report and he was fired immediately for drug abuse. A phone call from his lawyer got the facts straitened out, he got his job back and because she lost face, hounded him. and me.

I quit as soon as they could find a replacement as I am a medical professional not a drug cop.

Unfortunately in Canada, safety people are considered much more important than the medical staff and try to demand medical records from us.