Comments for Employee Drug Testing

Comment on Recent Chemical & Engineering News Article – “To Catch a Cheat” – Close but misses the Mark Relative to Drug Testing by Mike Grosh

Mike Grosh — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:42:35 +0000

The 20-30% error rate was published in a report from SAMHSA as a result of their internal testing and is quite correct. That does not mean that every instant test will be 30% incorrect, only that, taken on balance, instant tests have a potential for error at that level. The problem is, each test is performed on a unique, one time use only devise. There is no way of testing each devise for accuracy before use. On the other hand, lab procedure a repeated over an over. With regular calibration, the error rate is near zero. When confirmed by GCMS there if virtually no error rate.

Comment on Random Drug Testing – International Laws by Mike Grosh

Mike Grosh — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:35:49 +0000

Pcholakis – How is that possible? The individual is notified that they must report. They have until the end of the day to present to a clinic where the give an observed specimen. The technician places a seal over the specimen container and the individual initials the seal. There is no opportunity to adulterate the specimen with that procedure. They may try to consume lots of fluids or take one of the products available on the net but if the collection and lab procedure check creatinine levels, specific gravity, and employ other procedure any attempt to dilute or alter the specimen will be discovered and reported. Most courts will interpret such alteration as tantamount to a positive result.

Comment on Recent Chemical & Engineering News Article – “To Catch a Cheat” – Close but misses the Mark Relative to Drug Testing by pcholakis

pcholakis — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:29:42 +0000

Some on-site oral fluid screens, such as the OraPoint, detect Hydrocodone (Vicodin), as well as Oxycodone (Oxycontin, Percoset). Prescription pain reliever abuse is a serious workplace safety threat.

Comment on Recent Chemical & Engineering News Article – “To Catch a Cheat” – Close but misses the Mark Relative to Drug Testing by pcholakis

pcholakis — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:27:44 +0000

Mike, your 20%-30% error rate for instant tests is incorrect, at least as far as oral fluid based tests.

Mary, you are correct in your assumption that prescription drugs represent a serious, if not epidemic level threat to workplace safety. Some oral fluid tests, such as the OraPoint, detect Hydrocodone (Vicodin), as well as Oxycodone (Oxycontin, Percoset).

Comment on Recent Chemical & Engineering News Article – “To Catch a Cheat” – Close but misses the Mark Relative to Drug Testing by pcholakis

pcholakis — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:22:12 +0000

Actually, DOT urine-based testing will never report a Vicodin positive. Furthermore, at a 2,000 ng/ml cut-off, DOT urine-based testing will even provide an initial detection of a high percentage of Vicodin use / misuse.

Comment on Random Drug Testing – International Laws by pcholakis

pcholakis — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:20:00 +0000

The above is not an example of a robust random testing program since the donor has the ability to adulterate the specimen during the interim period between notification and reporting to the drug testing site.

Comment on Cheating is Achillees Heal of Urine Drug Tests by pcholakis

pcholakis — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:17:45 +0000

Urine substitution in general is problematic. The only way to mitigate this issue is to via observed specimen collection.

Comment on Cheating is Achillees Heal of Urine Drug Tests by mothball

mothball — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:56:50 +0000

What if a teen substitutes her urine with anothers the night before a test, and she kept it very warm all night. Would that change the structure of the urine once sent to the lab?

Comment on Random Drug Testing – International Laws by Mike

Mike — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:12:16 +0000

True, random drug testing can be a strong monitoring tool as well as a deterrent to drug abuse. That is, if the program is properly designed and administrated. Most random programs used for monitoring require the individual to call in on a specified schedule to hear a message with some kind of letter, number or color code, and then give a specimine at a pre-determined location when their particular code is announced. The problem with such a system is there is no documentation of the call and therefor no information available about call history. Which candidate is compliant, the person who call intermittently, doesn’t call for a week, calls back and happens to hear a “go” code, or the person who calls every day as required. Of course, as with any drug screening program, the technology, collection methodology and other factors will determine the ultimate effectiveness of the program.

Comment on Recent Chemical & Engineering News Article – “To Catch a Cheat” – Close but misses the Mark Relative to Drug Testing by Mike

Mike — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:14:12 +0000

In response to Mary Johnson – lab based testing can and does pick up Vicodine and other synthetic opiate as a positive for opiates. Confirmation my GCMS will identify the specific synthetic. Instant tests often will not report positive under opiates, unless set broad enough in sensitivity to run the risk of picking up a lot of false positives for other substances. And even in those cases where an opiate positives occurs instants will not specify the specific drug unless confirmed by GCMS testing in the lab. That said, be careful of a policy of instant tests with GCMS confirmation of positives because the 20-30 % error rate in instant testing produces false negative as well as false positive results.