Workplace Drug And Alcohol Screening Programs

Benefits and Downsides of Workplace Screening Programs

The epidemiological study to understand the impact of the drug and alcohol abuse can be done on the merits of a check and balance exercise if we see it from the point of view of a management based exercise. The same exercise can also help the organization in screening certain low productivity areas of the manufacturing. Apart from it, it can also enhance the efforts that we are doing in the direction of removing the safety hazards (Ken Pidd, 2011).

Instead of treating it as a screening exercise, we can also give it the name of a workplace program to increase the efficiency and well-being of the employees. It can create a psychological barrier in the mind of the employees and a systematic and regular intervention can support many employees that are addicted to it or heading towards a severe addiction (Genevieve M Ames, 2011).

An optimum method to keep a check on the mild addicts 

An epidemiological study gives us an opportunity to look at the things from various points of views. In the current case, a cross-sectional approach can work effectively. This cross-sectional approach promotes the culture of random checking (Scott Mcdonalds, 2011). There are two types of addicts. First, we have hardcore addicts that cannot live without drug or alcohol and second we have mild addicts. The detection of the mild addicts is a difficult task. Any exercise like screening at random places can act as deterrence for these mild addicts and help us in controlling their behaviors (Pidd, 2017).

The studies also show that severe use of alcohol causes an impairment of the senses during the phase of the hangover. Most of the victims feel that they are normal, however, they are not, the workers using heavy machinery can fall for this trap and it can become a security hazard for them (A GUIDE TO WORKPLACE DRUG TESTING IN IOWA, 2012). This screening can be connected to other workplace programs as well. It is true that this screening attracts an additional cost; however, in the long term, it has the power to bring down other medical expenses that our organization is bearing in employee benefit programs. The screening can tell them that how long the impact of alcohol or the drugs lasts in their body (Carpanter, 2007).

Alcohol and substance abuse has this power to trigger many more conditions in the life of a person in the form of disabilities caused by the accidents under the state of inebriation. Direct impacts of alcohol over organs like liver, kidney, and heart, as a responsible organization, we are bound to pay for each and every ailment that our teammates or the employees are facing (Sultany, 2013). The long-term impacts of the screening will help the organization in bringing down those costs.

The time and efforts consumed in this exercise can also create a barrier in the mind of certain individuals who know their limit. The results of the screening tests can bring disrespect for certain people that are working fine otherwise (Casoline, 2016). Every person has a right to live a life of choice as long as he is delivering the goods that he committed. Barriers like a screening test can make them feel uneasy. Since it is an exercise that we are planning to perform in random places, sometimes the accuracy of the results can keep us in a dark (Rothstein, 1991). Any such exercise can bring in hostility in a certain set of employees because people using alcohol on a regular basis sometimes loses their objectivity completely and become a slave of a self-destructing mindset. Official recognition of mild addictions can cause alienation among them.

Accuracy Claims of Testing Companies

Any company claiming an accuracy of 95 percent in the results is only fulfilling criteria of such tests. Drug and alcohol screening under commercial establishments where labor laws are applicable attracts a set of formalities along with the main procedures. It discourages the culture of random tests in normal circumstances. However, Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association (DATIA) clearly mentions that such types of the tests can only be conducted under reasonable suspicions. The result of such tests should be kept confidential (Kidd, 2016). Any organization conducting such type of test should have an assistance program in place. Department of Transport USA, Substance abuse and mental health service administration and Department of Health and Human Services has set some guidelines for the  (Drug Testing and Privacy, 1990) accuracy of the test. If the screening authority in the concerned organization has an accuracy of 95 percent then this is one criterion that they are fulfilling.  For a successful conductance of any screening program, the company has to meet with certain other criteria as well.  

a) Drug or Alcohol screening test results works on a predictive mechanism where a person judging the result has four options to choose from. These four options are a true negative, for the subjects that bring in a negative result, true positive for the subjects that bring in a positive result, false negative and false positive. 95 percent accuracy means that the method of the screening is performing well and it can be termed as a reliable source (Hall, 2016). A method of the testing showing 86 percent results is less reliable on the same scale. The analysis of the outcome of the results can further determine the presence of a drug in the bloodstream of a subject. In most of the cases, they don’t rely on the accuracy of the results. Instead, they search for a value of the presence of the drug up to a permissible limit.

It also means that most of the results only determines the presence of a drug and determines the range of the value of the drug.

If we assume a 0.01 percent prevalence of drug abuse then it indicates that out of the 100 subjects that we have tested during the screening ninety of them are positive and only 0.01 percent people may have drugs in their bloodstream. The formula for this calculation is

Positive Predictive Value = P(Drugs!+)

The results of the sensitivity and specificity determine the findings based on the true or t false ratings on the predictive scale

We can further elaborate this formula with the help of an example. Suppose we conduct a screening of 1000 employees and the finds a value of 8.6, then it indicates that the actual number of the drug users is 1000 *8.6= 86 persons. The current organization has a sample of 3000 respondents, the same calculation can be done on the basis of Positive Predictive value. The value of the drug usage rates may vary in both the cases of the accuracy (Hall, 2016).

Sensitivity refers to the number of the people whereas specificity refers to the number of the drugs that are in use. 95 percent sensitivity means that 95 percent of people are showing positive characteristics. 86 percent specificity means that 86 percent of people are showing positive characteristics on the scale of predictive probability.

Sensitivity ( 95 percent)	95 percent of subjects are sensitive to the test. They may be the users of the drugs.	5 percent of the users are not sensitive to the test, they may not be the users
Specificity ( 86 percent)	86 percent of the subjects are positive with the test.	14 percent of the users are negative to the tests.

 In the above-mentioned graph we can clearly see that how predictive sensitivity and predictive specificity determines the numbers of the people on sensitivity and specialty. On the scale of the sensitivity, we need to keep a scanner on the 95 percent of the employees, whereas on the range of the specificity we have 14 percent people that are negative to the test

The drug screening test should be performed in the organization because 95 percent of the subjects are sensitive to drug and alcohol use. However, it should be a surprise check and the epidemiological analysis should be done with the help of a cross-sectional approach. These cross-sections can be divided on the basis of the geography of the place. For instance, the garage area can be sensitive in this regard. Sometimes it can be done in the canteen area (Pidd, 2017).  

It should be treated as a descriptive analysis where they should collect notes about certain areas and come up with exact policies and measures to improve the conditions. A descriptive approach in this regard will also fulfill other conditions of the test like the confidentiality of the person who was tested.

Drug Testing and Privacy. (1990). The Privacy Commission of Canada, https://www.priv.gc.ca/media/4127/02_05_12_e.pdf.

A GUIDE TO WORKPLACE DRUG TESTING IN IOWA. (2012). Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy, https://www.state.ia.us/odcp/docs/Drug-FreeWorkplaceGuide7-2-12.pdf.

Carpanter, C. S. (2007). Workplace Drug Testing and Worker Drug Use. Health Service Research, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1955359/.

Casoline, A. (2016). Comparison of Urine and Oral Fluid for Workplace Drug Testing. Journal of analytical toxicology, https://academic.oup.com/jat/article/40/7/479/2364062.

Genevieve M Ames, J. B. (2011). Prevention Interventions of Alcohol Problems in the Workplace. Alcohol Research Current Review, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3860571/.

Hall, R. (2016). Drug Testing and Public Assistance. CLAP, https://www.clasp.org/sites/default/files/publications/2017/04/2016.02.04-Drug-Testing-and-Public-Assistance-Brief-FINAL.pdf.

Ken Pidd, A. R. (2011). Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing. NCETA, https://nceta.flinders.edu.au/files/3313/2200/4798/Workplace%20Drug%20Brochure%20sml.pdf.

Kidd, J. (2016). The Economics of Workplace. Mercer University School of Law, https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/50/2/Topic/50-2_Kidd.pdf.

Pidd, K. (2017). Drug Testing: Technologies and Programmes. NCETA, https://nceta.flinders.edu.au/files/4915/1209/0979/Drug_Testing_tech_and_programs_9_Nov_17.pdf.

Rothstein, M. A. (1991). WORKPLACE DRUG TESTING: A CASE STUDY IN THE MISAPPLICATION OF THE TECHNOLOGY. FALL, https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/assets/articlePDFs/v05/05HarvJLTech065.pdf.

Scott Mcdonalds, S. W. (2011). The Impact and Effectiveness of Drug Testing Programs in the Workplace. Springer Link, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4615-2399-4_6.

Sultany, R. (2013). Pre-Employment Drug Screening: Cost and benefits. UNLV, https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3047&context=thesesdissertations.