FAQ – Oral Fluid-based / Saliva Workplace Drug Testing
What is a preliminary test?
A preliminary (qualitative) test is a single test result based on an initial screen, providing a negative or non-negative result. The technology used for the Avitar ORALscreen is lateral flow immunoassay.
Why is a confirmatory test necessary?
The purpose of a confirmation test is to eliminate any false positive test results from an initial screening. A confirmatory test provides a quantitative result through a GC/MS or LC/MS/MS instrumented process. The substance and the concentration of substance can be accurately determined.
Is there any health risk involved in placing the sample collection device in the test subject's mouth?
No. The sample collection device is stored in hygienic sealed packaging until it is used. When used correctly there is no direct contact between the sample collection foam an the test. Biocompatibility testing has been conducted on the basis of the requirements and has shown that the sample collection device can be classified as biocompatible with regard to its intended use.
How long is the shelf-life of the test kits?
The shelf-life is stated as expiration date, “Exp.” on the device packaging.
Can an opened test kit be left unused?
No. The test kit must be used immediately after opening.
How quickly must the result read once it has been developed?
Negatives can be read once all red lines (5), are visible. Non-negative results should be read at the 15 minute mark. No on-site device results should be interpreted after 15 minutes.
The test subject has a very dry mouth. Will it be possible to obtain a sufficient sample of oral fluid?
Certain drugs have an inhibitory effect on the production of oral fluid or saliva.
Prior the collection, instruct the donor to drink a glass (8 ounces) of water, and wait 5 minutes. If after three minutes of sample collection the collector foam is not completely saturated with oral fluid repeat the collection.
Which substances can be identified using the ORALscreen?
At the present time, the ORALscreen system can detect 96% or drugs typically tested for in the workplace, including the following substances or classes of substances; in samples of oral fluid: Amphetamines: METHAMPHETAMINE and MDMA / Ecstasy.
Opitates:CODIENE, HEROINEi, MORPHINE, 6-AM (heroin metabolite), OXYCODONE (Oxycontin, Peroset, etc.), OXYMORPHONE, HYDROCODONE (Vocodin, Lortab, etc.), HYDROMORPHONE, Di-hydrocodine,
Marijana: delta-9 THC,
Cocaine: COCAINE, BENZYCLONIE (cocaine metabolite)
Which prescription drugs and designer drugs can be detected?
The ORALscreen is one of the only on-site oral fluid-based devices available that can accurately dectect the commonly abused classes of prescription pain releivers. Common brand names are Oxycontin, Percoset, Vicodin, Lortab, etc.
The METH test of ORALscreen allows detection not only of methamphetamine, but also other important designer amphetamines such as methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA,
"Ecstasy“).
What is the NIDA 5, SAMSHA, DOT-5 panel
This panel consists of tests for amphetamines, cocaine, morphine (heroin), PCP, and THC (marijuana). It is important to note the following:
1. PCP has a positivity rate of less that 0.3%
2. The cut-off level for OPIATES is set at 2000 ng/ml, thus making the test less effective than ORALscreen for detecting OPIATE use / abuse.
3. NIDA-5 / DOT-5, SAMSHA CAN NOT detect the commonly abuse prescription pain releivers OXYCODONE, HYDROCODONE, etc., perhaps the number one threat to workplace safety today.
Does the test show cross-reactions with other legal substances?
Because the ORALscreen system, is an immunoassay process, based on the
antigen/antibody reaction, cross-reactivity are possible. However, the antibodies used are very specific, thus cross reactivity is minimal. Confirmatory testing and MRO procedures are established to elminate false positives.
How quickly is the test result ready?
The entire on-site screen result, from the start of the sample-collection process to display of the result, takes 5 to 15 minutes on average.
Does the device have to be disposed of after analysis, or can it be sent off for a confirmation analysis?
For a negative result, the device can be disposed of. Oral fluid, without any visible signs of blood, is not considered a biohazard by the CDC.
For a non-negative result, a second sample can be collectef for confirmation analysis. Confirmation directly from the device is also available. Please discuss this option with your Avitar representative
Are there limits below which drugs cannot be detected? If so, what are these limits?
Detection windows (times) and sensitivity, cut-off values, exist for all drugs.
Thus a negative result means either that the tested saliva contains no drugs, or that they are present in concentrations below the respective cut-off value. In general detection of drugs in oral fluid ranges from within minutes of consumption up to 2-3 days. Available research indicates on that marijana (THC-delta 9) can not be detected beyond 18-24 hrs. in oral fluid at ng/ml levels, regardless of the test / test technique.
What result does the ORALscreen test window display?
The test window displays the results of the analysis, distinct for each class of drugs, in the form of a qualitative reading with either an absent line for a non-negative sample (potentially containing drugs) or a line for a negative sample (not containing drugs or drugs below the cut-off level). A control line is also visible to indicate proper operation of the device.
What is the best measure of accuracy?
Accuarcy is a comparative ratio of sensitivty and specificity. Accuracy for any device should be measured by comparing the device to a quantitative test (GC/MS or LC/MS/MS) on a “paired sample” basis using the same speciment type. Accuracy should not be measured by comparing results between two device or between different specimen types due to varying detection windows and other factors.
Sensitivity refers to the ratio of true positive (TP) samples to the total number of samples rated positive by the test kit ((TP + FP, false positive).
Specificity refers to the ratio of true negative (TN) samples to the total number of samples rated as negative by the test kit (TN + FN, false negative).
Accuracy refers to the ratio of correctly identified samples to the total number of samples.
Sensitivity:
TP
(TP+FF)
Specificity:
TN
(TN+FN)
Accuracy:
(TP+FN)
(TP)FP+TN+FN)
How were the system's key performance data determined?
By tests with spiked synthetic saliva the system's key performance data of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were determined, and some limited field trials were conducted by Avitar and third parties.
Can the test kits be purchased individually?
The test kits are available in boxes (containing 20 test kits), or cases (containing 5 boxes).
The test subject has just eaten or drunk something or has just been smoking. Will this affect the test result?
The test subject must have nothing in their mout for a minimum of 5 minutes berfore the test.
Can eating poppy seeds cause a false positive drug test for heroin?
Eating poppy seeds cannot turn a confirmatory drug test positive for heroin. However, poppy seeds to contain morphine. Therefore, eating poppy seeds (e.g. a poppy seed bagel) can result a in a non-negative on-site result. This effect can be mitigated by waiting 45 minutes and retesting the individuals, as it’s a very short term issues
Can passive inhalation of marijuana cause a false positive drug test?
Sometimes people who test positive for marijuana will claim it was the result of passive inhalation.
Available research show that an individual must have been in an confined space, such as an automobile, for a period of time in order for detectable levels of THC-delta 9 to be found in oral fluid. Any potential effect is also of short (45min-one hour) duration. Thus, claims of passive inhalation “over the weekend” or even “last night”, would not cause a non-negative on-site test result.
Can over-the-counter cold medications cause a false positive drug test?
No. Avitar’s methamphetamine tests are very specific, and will not react with OTC cold remedies, with the GC/MS confirmatory test also serving as a safeguard.
By the end of the sampling process, the sampling collector doesn’t appear
saturated with oral fluid . Will this affect the test result?
The device will not run (no read wash and/or no control line) without adequate sample. It is important that the foam collector is completely saturated, thus extend the collection time and provide additional water as needed.
Do the on-site results provide legal proof of drug abuse?
No. An on-site drug test can only deliver general qualitative "screening" results.
Any “non-negative” screening result should be following with a confirmatory (GC/MS or LC/MS/MS) analysis with all associated processes and documentation completed properly.
After collecting a sample, the sponge is found to contain some blood. Does this affect the test result?
No. Blood does not affect the test result, however, the specimen should be considered a bio-hazard.
How is it possible to tell which test result relates to which test subject?
By means donor ID inscribed into the device, and or chain of custody number assigned for confirmatory testing.
Can the test subject manipulate the test result?
No. Sample collection can directly observed during the entire process avoiding any type of manipulation. The subject may attempt to hold the foam collector away from any oral fluid, however, this practic is also observable. If intentional, the practice should be considered an attempt to interfere with the testing process and be handled per company policy.
.
How comparable are oral fluid / saliva and blood substance abuse readings?
Study data reveal an overall correlation / correspondence in positive oral fluid samples with positive blood samples in more than 95 percent of cases.
Which method of analysis is most suitable for a confirmation analysis?
The usual reference method is gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS) or liquid chromatography (LC/MS/MS).
How quickly can drug consumption be detected by means of an oral fluid analysis?
The individual drugs and/or their metabolites can be detected in the saliva immediately, or within minutes after oral ingestion. On average, it takes several hours for drug metabolites to be detected post-consumption in urine.
How long after consumption can the individual drugs be detected in saliva?
The time window during which drugs can be detected in oral fluid depends on various factors; e.g. the quantity consumed, the frequency of consumption, the time between the drug consumption and the test and a person's individual metabolism.
Various studies have shown that amphetamines/methamphetamines remain in the saliva in sufficient quantities for detection for up to 50 hours; cocaine can be detected for up to 12-36 hours, opiates for up to 24 hours and longer, and cannabinoids for up to 24 hours.
Do the test results provide legal proof of drug abuse?
Any on-site drug test can only deliver general "screening" results. After any non-negative screening result a confirmation analysis (e.g. with GC-MS / LC/MS/MS) should be performed.
The quantitative result is legally defensable.
Friday, January 18, 2008
On-site Oral Fluid / Saliva Drug Screens - Accurate
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
A comparison between instant and laboratory oral fluid analysis among arrestees. Yacoubian GS; Wish ED.
Research studies that collect biological measures of drug use have traditionally utilized laboratory urinalysis.
A comparison between instant and laboratory oral fluid analysis among arrestees. Yacoubian GS; Wish ED.
Research studies that collect biological measures of drug use have traditionally utilized laboratory urinalysis.
Several recent studies have also documented the utility of laboratory oral fluid (OF) analysis.
A new method of drug testing -- instant OF technology -- may offer a quicker, equally accurate alternative to laboratory OF assays.
To date, however, no field studies have compared the two methods.
In the current study, an instant OF test (Avitar ORALscreen (TM)) was administered to adult arrestees surveyed through Maryland's Substance Abuse Need for Treatment among Arrestees (SANTA) study.
Following a research interview, a second OF sample was collected (Avitar ORALconfirm (TM)) and shipped to the manufacturer's laboratory for analysis.
The Avtiar ORALscreen instant OF test was:
96% sensitive and 83% specific for cocaine,
100% sensitive and 75% specific for opiates, and
100% sensitive and 94% specific for marijuana.
Copyright 2006, Haight-Ashbury Publishing
Reference Source: Yacoubian GS; Wish ED. A comparison between instant and laboratory oral fluid analysis among arrestees. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 38(2): 207-210, 2006. (10 refs.)
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Courts Uphold Workplace Drug Testing - Once Again
Alberta Court of Appeal ruling upholds construction workplace drug testing
(Source: Canadian News)
EDMONTON - Construction and energy companies are happy with an Alberta court ruling that upholds the right of employers to test workers for drugs.
The Alberta Court of Appeal's decision overturned a lower court judgment that said Kellogg, Brown & Root Co. discriminated against a man in 2002 when it fired him from an oilsands project near Fort McMurray after he tested positive for marijuana.
John Chiasson, who admitted to being a recreational pot smoker, filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, which ruled against him. The commission said there needs to be a balance between an individual's human rights and the needs of an employer in protecting others.
But Court of Queen's Bench Justice Sheilah Martin then ruled in his favour. She said he should have been treated the same as someone with a drug addiction, which is considered a disability in human rights case law.
The panel of three Appeal Court justices disagreed. The judges said it is legitimate for Kellogg, Brown & Root to presume that people who use drugs at all are a safety risk in an already dangerous workplace.
"We see this case as no different than that of a trucking or taxi company which has a policy requiring its employees to refrain from the use of alcohol for some time before the employee drives one of the employer's vehicles," the justices wrote.
"Extending human rights protections to situations resulting in placing the lives of others at risk flies in the face of logic."
Kellogg, Brown & Root, one of the largest construction firms in the world, was helping to build an expansion to Syncrude Canada's plant at the time of Chiasson's case and is still active in the oilsands.
Andrew Robertson, a lawyer for the company, said the Appeal Court's decision is important to energy and construction industries.
"It is refreshing to see the Alberta Court of Appeal factor in risk management in safety-sensitive workplaces in a circumstance when there had been a recent focus on human rights issues," he said.
Heather Browne, a spokeswoman for Texas-based Kellogg, Brown & Root, hailed the ruling.
"KBR is a leader in workplace safety, and maintaining that commitment is the company's top priority," Browne said Wednesday.
"The court ruling upholds that commitment and we look forward to continuing our work in that regard."
Robertson noted that the Alberta appeal justices did not follow an Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in a similar case that said employees who test positive for drugs are to be dealt with as if they have an addiction even if they don't.
He said courts in provinces outside of Alberta and Ontario hearing similar cases will now have two different precedents to refer to.
Commission lawyer Janice Ashcroft said the Court of Appeal ruling will be reviewed before determining whether to seek leave to have the case heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.
"It is important to employers and employees to clarify what is the role of human rights when it comes to drug testing," Ashcroft said.
"This affects a lot of people and it is important. The commission does have a duty to ensure that the rights of all Albertans - both employers and employees - are balanced in this respect."
During the original court case, officials with oilsands giant Syncrude testified that the company's lost-time rate from accidents has dropped in part because of drug and alcohol testing.
Syncrude, Suncor, Albian Sands and other major oilsands heavyweights test their employees for drugs before they are allowed on jobsites.
Kara Flynn, a spokeswoman for Syncrude, said that in a broad sense, the Appeal Court ruling supports the company's drug-testing policy and goals.
"Any judicial decisions that support that are greatly appreciated," she said.
The impact of the ruling is already starting to ripple beyond Alberta's boundaries.
Phil Hochstein, president of the Independent Contractors and Business Association in British Columbia, said while workplace drug testing is common on major projects in Alberta, it is the exception in B.C.
He expects that is going to change.
"I think that workplace testing of construction workers is probably an issue whose time has come," he said from Vancouver.
"I think this case is going to spur more of this jobsite testing, not only on big industrial jobs, but on commercial and institutional jobs throughout the country."
(Source: Canadian News)
EDMONTON - Construction and energy companies are happy with an Alberta court ruling that upholds the right of employers to test workers for drugs.
The Alberta Court of Appeal's decision overturned a lower court judgment that said Kellogg, Brown & Root Co. discriminated against a man in 2002 when it fired him from an oilsands project near Fort McMurray after he tested positive for marijuana.
John Chiasson, who admitted to being a recreational pot smoker, filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, which ruled against him. The commission said there needs to be a balance between an individual's human rights and the needs of an employer in protecting others.
But Court of Queen's Bench Justice Sheilah Martin then ruled in his favour. She said he should have been treated the same as someone with a drug addiction, which is considered a disability in human rights case law.
The panel of three Appeal Court justices disagreed. The judges said it is legitimate for Kellogg, Brown & Root to presume that people who use drugs at all are a safety risk in an already dangerous workplace.
"We see this case as no different than that of a trucking or taxi company which has a policy requiring its employees to refrain from the use of alcohol for some time before the employee drives one of the employer's vehicles," the justices wrote.
"Extending human rights protections to situations resulting in placing the lives of others at risk flies in the face of logic."
Kellogg, Brown & Root, one of the largest construction firms in the world, was helping to build an expansion to Syncrude Canada's plant at the time of Chiasson's case and is still active in the oilsands.
Andrew Robertson, a lawyer for the company, said the Appeal Court's decision is important to energy and construction industries.
"It is refreshing to see the Alberta Court of Appeal factor in risk management in safety-sensitive workplaces in a circumstance when there had been a recent focus on human rights issues," he said.
Heather Browne, a spokeswoman for Texas-based Kellogg, Brown & Root, hailed the ruling.
"KBR is a leader in workplace safety, and maintaining that commitment is the company's top priority," Browne said Wednesday.
"The court ruling upholds that commitment and we look forward to continuing our work in that regard."
Robertson noted that the Alberta appeal justices did not follow an Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in a similar case that said employees who test positive for drugs are to be dealt with as if they have an addiction even if they don't.
He said courts in provinces outside of Alberta and Ontario hearing similar cases will now have two different precedents to refer to.
Commission lawyer Janice Ashcroft said the Court of Appeal ruling will be reviewed before determining whether to seek leave to have the case heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.
"It is important to employers and employees to clarify what is the role of human rights when it comes to drug testing," Ashcroft said.
"This affects a lot of people and it is important. The commission does have a duty to ensure that the rights of all Albertans - both employers and employees - are balanced in this respect."
During the original court case, officials with oilsands giant Syncrude testified that the company's lost-time rate from accidents has dropped in part because of drug and alcohol testing.
Syncrude, Suncor, Albian Sands and other major oilsands heavyweights test their employees for drugs before they are allowed on jobsites.
Kara Flynn, a spokeswoman for Syncrude, said that in a broad sense, the Appeal Court ruling supports the company's drug-testing policy and goals.
"Any judicial decisions that support that are greatly appreciated," she said.
The impact of the ruling is already starting to ripple beyond Alberta's boundaries.
Phil Hochstein, president of the Independent Contractors and Business Association in British Columbia, said while workplace drug testing is common on major projects in Alberta, it is the exception in B.C.
He expects that is going to change.
"I think that workplace testing of construction workers is probably an issue whose time has come," he said from Vancouver.
"I think this case is going to spur more of this jobsite testing, not only on big industrial jobs, but on commercial and institutional jobs throughout the country."
Monday, December 24, 2007
Big Rig Drivers Beat Drug Tests?
Can Big Rig Drivers Beat Drug Tests?
By Robert ArnoldPOSTED: 10:03 am CST December 20, 2007UPDATED: 12:46 pm CST
December 22, 2007HOUSTON -- Local 2 investigates potentially dangerous loopholes in federal drug testing laws. Our hidden cameras expose a flawed system that can allow drug addicts to get behind the wheel of an 18-wheeler or even a school bus. Local 2 investigative reporter Robert Arnold shows us how what we uncovered now has Congress and the industry demanding change.
We sent our hidden cameras to a Houston drug testing facility where we signed up to take an official Department of Transportation drug test. Federal law requires every driver to get a drug test before they're allowed to drive an 18-wheeler, a school bus or any kind of commercial vehicle.
But before Local 2 went for the test, we were able to order drug-free urine off the Internet.The kit Local 2 purchased came with a tube of dehydrated urine, a vial and a small heater. We mixed the powdered urine with water then used the heater to bring the sample up to the temperature of the human body.At the collection facility, Arnold was ordered to take off his sport coat and place the contents of his pockets in a secure locker. That was the extent of the search, which meant no one at the facility knew Arnold had the vial of mail-order urine hidden as he entered the bathroom.Once inside the bathroom, Arnold was allowed to close and lock the door, which allowed him to use the vial of mail-order urine as his sample for the drug test.Arnold was then sent to a bathroom to provide a urine specimen for drug test.A few days later the results of Arnold's drug test came back negative. The mail-order urine passed with no problems at all.
The facility Local 2 tested did absolutely nothing wrong. Employees followed every procedure they are required to follow when collecting a specimen for a Department of Transportation drug test. Yet, Local 2 still found it easy to beat the test."Your investigation shows how easy it is to circumvent the law," said U.S. Rep. Ted Poe, who sits on Congress' Transportation Committee."Those regulations were written based on the premise that the person giving the sample was going to be honest about it," said Poe. "That's not the world we live in."Poe said what concerns him is if Arnold had been a drug user, then that negative test would still allow him to drive an 18-wheeler, a school bus or any kind of commercial vehicle."
When it's so easy to circumvent the law, the law becomes meaningless," said Poe."Whatever needs to be done to tighten the regulations to ensure that we don't have anyone slip through the cracks like you did, then I think that needs to be addressed," said Van O'Neal, the head of Houston Community College's truck driving school.
O'Neal's program is one of the largest in the country and requires 50 percent of students and faculty to undergo random drug tests. He says that's why Congress has to tighten the regulations."Those policies must be followed, not need to be followed, but I believe must be followed to ensure that our roadways are safe," O'Neal said.Congress is promising to come up with tougher regulations because what Local 2 did was not an isolated case. A report from the Government Accountability Office shows federal investigators also circumvented drug testing laws at several facilities. The report even warns Congress it impossible to determine how many drivers have been able to beat the federally required drug test.Federal law also requires trucking companies to randomly test employees to hopefully catch those who may have beat the test the first time. But after Local 2 Investigates combed through tens of thousands of federal violations, we found not everyone is following the law.
By Robert ArnoldPOSTED: 10:03 am CST December 20, 2007UPDATED: 12:46 pm CST
December 22, 2007HOUSTON -- Local 2 investigates potentially dangerous loopholes in federal drug testing laws. Our hidden cameras expose a flawed system that can allow drug addicts to get behind the wheel of an 18-wheeler or even a school bus. Local 2 investigative reporter Robert Arnold shows us how what we uncovered now has Congress and the industry demanding change.
We sent our hidden cameras to a Houston drug testing facility where we signed up to take an official Department of Transportation drug test. Federal law requires every driver to get a drug test before they're allowed to drive an 18-wheeler, a school bus or any kind of commercial vehicle.
But before Local 2 went for the test, we were able to order drug-free urine off the Internet.The kit Local 2 purchased came with a tube of dehydrated urine, a vial and a small heater. We mixed the powdered urine with water then used the heater to bring the sample up to the temperature of the human body.At the collection facility, Arnold was ordered to take off his sport coat and place the contents of his pockets in a secure locker. That was the extent of the search, which meant no one at the facility knew Arnold had the vial of mail-order urine hidden as he entered the bathroom.Once inside the bathroom, Arnold was allowed to close and lock the door, which allowed him to use the vial of mail-order urine as his sample for the drug test.Arnold was then sent to a bathroom to provide a urine specimen for drug test.A few days later the results of Arnold's drug test came back negative. The mail-order urine passed with no problems at all.
The facility Local 2 tested did absolutely nothing wrong. Employees followed every procedure they are required to follow when collecting a specimen for a Department of Transportation drug test. Yet, Local 2 still found it easy to beat the test."Your investigation shows how easy it is to circumvent the law," said U.S. Rep. Ted Poe, who sits on Congress' Transportation Committee."Those regulations were written based on the premise that the person giving the sample was going to be honest about it," said Poe. "That's not the world we live in."Poe said what concerns him is if Arnold had been a drug user, then that negative test would still allow him to drive an 18-wheeler, a school bus or any kind of commercial vehicle."
When it's so easy to circumvent the law, the law becomes meaningless," said Poe."Whatever needs to be done to tighten the regulations to ensure that we don't have anyone slip through the cracks like you did, then I think that needs to be addressed," said Van O'Neal, the head of Houston Community College's truck driving school.
O'Neal's program is one of the largest in the country and requires 50 percent of students and faculty to undergo random drug tests. He says that's why Congress has to tighten the regulations."Those policies must be followed, not need to be followed, but I believe must be followed to ensure that our roadways are safe," O'Neal said.Congress is promising to come up with tougher regulations because what Local 2 did was not an isolated case. A report from the Government Accountability Office shows federal investigators also circumvented drug testing laws at several facilities. The report even warns Congress it impossible to determine how many drivers have been able to beat the federally required drug test.Federal law also requires trucking companies to randomly test employees to hopefully catch those who may have beat the test the first time. But after Local 2 Investigates combed through tens of thousands of federal violations, we found not everyone is following the law.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Oxycodone & Hydrocodone Deaths Exceed Those For Heroin
Tampa, Florida -
Drug related deaths for oxycodone and hydrocondone exceed those for heroin in the State of Florida.
U.S. Drug Czar John Walters again voiced concern about the abuse of prescription drugs.
Walters, National Director of Drugs Control Policy, noted that many teens and young people believe prescription pills are not as dangerous as street drugs.
12% of people between the ages of 18 and 25 report abusing prescription drugs in the past year.
CBS NEWS - WTSP - Tampa Bay's 10 News - Tampa / St. Petersburg
Drug related deaths for oxycodone and hydrocondone exceed those for heroin in the State of Florida.
U.S. Drug Czar John Walters again voiced concern about the abuse of prescription drugs.
Walters, National Director of Drugs Control Policy, noted that many teens and young people believe prescription pills are not as dangerous as street drugs.
12% of people between the ages of 18 and 25 report abusing prescription drugs in the past year.
CBS NEWS - WTSP - Tampa Bay's 10 News - Tampa / St. Petersburg
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Urine DOT Drug Testing Not Working - New Government GAO Report
Now even the US Government knows the obvious ....
Drug testing without observed specimen collection, is a waste of time and money.
Private interest groups, consisting largely of urine drug testing laboratories, urine-centric TPA's, occupational health clinics, some unions, as well as a select group of archaic government bureaucracies (DOT, FAA, etc.) continue to exclusively support urine-based testing vs. superior, user-friendly technologies - most notably oral fluid / saliva and hair-based drug screening.
Oral fluid / saliva and hair-based drug screening technologies allow for observed specimen collection and are relatively non-invasive vs. traditional urine drug testing. Oral fluid delivers information on "current" / "on-the-job" drug and/or alcohol use, while hair detects "historical drug abuse".
Oral fluid / saliva is suitable for random, post-accident, and reasonable suspicion testing, and also can be used for pre-employment testing.
Hair is most appropriate for pre-employment testing, especially for employers that wish to track drug use history for a period of up to 90 days.
The DOT and other government agencies, including "regulatory agencies" such as SAMHSA are largely to blame for the continued emphasis upon traditional urine-based testing, and ultimately serving to help perpetuate America's problem with substance abuse.
Why? Government agencies resist moving to newer technologies either due to the fear of having to "do more work", and/or are impacted by private interest groups with heavy lobbying budgets and well established "old boy networks".
In their defense, the DOT claims "success" by noting a "2% positive rate". This is a blatant misuse of statistics. Of course the is only a 2% positive rate... as most drug abusers are cheating the test!
As noted below, if drug testing involved observed specimen collection, and/or more stringent techniques the positive rate soars to 10%.
Urine-based drug testing is simply:
1. too difficult, costly, and noxious to apply consistently and on a corporate-wide / industry-wide basis,
2. prone to drug abusers "beating the test".
Several documented cases support the above facts:
For example, a recent construction site that had a low "positive rate" using tradition urine drug testing, but had several site issues and eventually discovered hypodermic needles on-site.
When they implemented Avitar's oral fluid-based testing, conducing a full site-based random screen, the positive rate registered 20%!
Urine testing laboratories, in most cases, are not able to determine if urine samples are adulterated or substituted, other than in the most basic and severe cases.
Despite this fact, they continue to spread misinformation, claiming the opposite.
The Director of Workplace Drug Testing for SAMHSA is on record, testifying before Congress, that detect adulterants, that labs can only detect a very small fraction of the many products available on the Internet available to beat urine-based drug tests, and that substituted drug free urine and synthetic urine also are undetectable.
GAO: Easy to cheat on trucker drug tests
Three-quarters of testing sites don’t provide secure conditions, report finds
The Transportation Department estimates that fewer than 2 percent of truck drivers test positive each year for controlled substances.
But when Oregon conducted its own tests, 9 percent of truck drivers tested positive.
Dozens of products on the Web are marketed to truckers as fail-safe ways to defeat the mandatory drug tests.
WASHINGTON - Undercover federal investigators discovered that it was surprisingly easy to cheat on random drug tests designed to catch truck drivers who use drugs, NBC News has learned.
Undercover investigators with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, used bogus truck driver’s licenses to gain access to 24 drug-testing sites.
They found that 75 percent “failed to restrict access to items that could be used to adulterate or dilute the [urine] specimen, meaning that running water, soap, or air freshener was available in the bathroom during the test.”
The GAO team also bought drug-masking products over the Web and was able to mix them with real specimens at the drug-testing sites “without being caught by site collectors,” the agency said in a report scheduled to be made public ThursdayDrug - screening labs never realized that there was a problem.
“Every drug masking product went undetected by the drug screening labs,” said the report, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News.Rep.
Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said the report was “frankly astonishing and shocking and dismaying.
You can manipulate the tests, you can mask substance abuse and go undetected on the roadways.”Oberstar, who planned to hold a hearing Thursday, said the drug-testing system was broken and was placing other drivers in danger.“It fails, it is not sufficient, it is not protecting the public interest,” he said.
How many are cheating?
The Transportation Department estimates that fewer than 2 percent of truck drivers test positive each year for controlled substances in random federal tests.
But when Oregon law enforcement officials conducted their own random tests this year, 9 percent of truck drivers tested positive.
Dozens of products widely available on the Web are marketed to truckers as fail-safe ways to defeat the mandatory drug tests.
“My first reaction was total disbelief. I just felt sick,” said Kathleen Ellsbury, whose husband, Tony Qamar, was killed two years ago when a truck driver in Washington state lost his load of logs on a curve, crushing Qamar’s car.
Also killed was Daniel Johnson, a fellow seismologist at the University of Washington.Ellsbury learned later that the truck driver, who was sentenced to 4½ years in prison for vehicular homicide, had previously been convicted of possessing methamphetamines and that he had meth in his blood at the time of the crash.
“The system has big holes, let’s say that,” said Ellsbury, who said she had a message for truck drivers who might be tempted to cheat:
“I’d like to be standing right outside the bathroom and hold up a picture of my husband — remind them there's consequences.”
Truckers promise to do betterSpokesmen for the trucking industry said truck drivers were among the safest drivers on the road, with much lower rates of drug use than the general population. Still, they said, having roughly 30,000 drivers test positive each year was unacceptable.
Lisa Myers is chief investigative correspondent and Richard Gardella is an investigative producer for NBC.
Friday, October 5, 2007
" New " Building Construction and Construction Trades Department BCTD
For Safety Professionals attempting to innovate and improve efforts can be frustrating, largely due to the fact that politics can easily supersede logic.
That said, while potentially well-intentioned, the "new" Building and Construction Trades Department - BCTD drug testing program ( which oddly requires outdated and relatively ineffective urine-based testing as well as the use of a specific laboratory, third party administrator, and their specific product and services ) represents a step backwards ...
not forward ,
more importantly, however, this archaic structure does NOT serve the best interests of unions, union members, contractors, insurers, or owners.
The Need for Change: Substance Abuse in the Construction Sector
We all know that a drug free workplace is a safe workplace and the union skilled trades and contractors were ahead of their time years 16 years ago, when urine-based drug testing was introduce by innovators as evidence by the MUST program, LEAD, and others.
However, times change, the drugs of choice change and the numbers of ways to “beat” the tests have changed.
It’s time again for the union skilled trades and contractors to leap ahead of the national status quo.
Recently the States of Hawaii and Georgia passed legislation to improve safety and reduce workers compensation costs through the implementation of on-site oral fluid / saliva drug screening.
The construction industry played a key role in driving these changes, especially in Hawaii. Organized labor in particular, as well as contractors, owners, and insurers recognized the following:
Drug abuse in the construction sector is as bad, if not worse than ever,
Effective drug testing, especially random drug testing is required to truly manage workplace substance abuse,
Observed specimen collection, convenience, and low cost are mandatory to ensure compliance.
It's time again for union's to put politics aside and address the issue from from a safety point of view:
Why drug test? Simple.
While 10% of employees aged 18 – 49 years abuse drugs (not including alcohol), the construction industry runs 2x-3x this rate.
With over 50% of reportable job-site accidents linked to substance abuse, it’s clear that employee safety and the corporate bottom line are sufficient reasons to implement a drug free workplace program.
A need for change
Pre-employment drug testing has become an intelligence test.
Access to the internet has made defeating drug tests an easy task. Workers are able to get information on how to “flush” their system; adulterate samples; and there are even products like the Whizinator, which uses synthetic urine undetectable by current drug testing methods, designed to defeat observed urine collection.
Random drug testing, post-incident and reasonable suspicion modes are required components of any comprehensive, effective safety program.
The goal of any drug / alcohol policy is deterrence vs. “catching” employees.
Random testing has consistently demonstrated to be singularly effective in reducing on-the-job substance abuse.
Any effective testing mode must involve direct observation of specimen collection. But observed urine collection is embarrassing and degrading to both the observed and the observer.Arguably, there are more instances of drug abusers defeating unobserved techniques, such as traditional urine-based testing, than there are “positives”.
Just look at nationwide statistics for validation. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of drug abusers are employed. Furthermore most drug testing (approx. 90%) involves traditional urine laboratory-based pre-employment testing.
Oral fluid works
Oral fluid tests are cheaper, faster and easier to use than urinalysis… and unlike urine, can not be easily defeated.
Random testing via on-site oral fluid is fast, provides results within 5-15 minutes, and averages $20 per test. It has the additional advantage of detecting current, vs. historical drug use. Oral fluid tests typically detect from within minutes of consumption up to 2-3 days for most drugs (for THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, the maximum is 24 hours.).
Urine testing can not detect drugs for up to the first several hours and is only an indicator of historical drug use. Furthermore, for THC, detection can go back as far as 30 days.
Do you as an employer really care what an otherwise dependable employee does at his/her home on the weekend?
Do you even have a right to know?
“This measure (on-site oral fluid drug testing) provides a cost effective on-the-job alternative to laboratory tests that can be costly and difficult to schedule."- Aiona, Lt. Governor, Hawaii
Also look at the true costs of urine-based random testing.
In many cases our current program requires we send our employees off site for random testing. The cost involved includes not only the hourly labor rate, probably $50/hour with benefits, but the productivity loss also. The end result is that a typical off-site urine test is truly costing a job about $300 per test, and the effectiveness is questionable at best.On-site oral fluid based testing works.
Here are actual results from a contractor who switched from urine-based to oral fluid-based drug screening:
Where do we go from here?
Occupational health, safety, and risk management professionals must assist in driving change. This groups and only this group knows what truly happens every day on our job sites.
At the end of day, they “get it”.
It’s time for safety professionals to join with all constituencies to update current drug and alcohol free workplace programs to assure compliance and effectiveness.
It’s also time for the union skilled trades and contractors to again lead the charge in effecting change.
It’s time to implement oral fluid-based testing techniques at a few “pilot sites” and demonstrate the advantage of effective drug testing programs vs. the status quo.
References:
2006 United States Department of Health – Substance Abuse and Mental Health Agency (SAMSHA) National Survey on Drug Use & Health (NHSDA)- Office of Applied Studies. (2007) Results from the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National findings (DHHS Publication No. SMA 07-4293, NSDUH Series H-32). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Peter N. Cholakis and Roger Bruce (July 2007) Drug Testing in the Workplace – A look at oral fluid-based testing. Professional Safety Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers, July 2007, 31-36
That said, while potentially well-intentioned, the "new" Building and Construction Trades Department - BCTD drug testing program ( which oddly requires outdated and relatively ineffective urine-based testing as well as the use of a specific laboratory, third party administrator, and their specific product and services ) represents a step backwards ...
not forward ,
more importantly, however, this archaic structure does NOT serve the best interests of unions, union members, contractors, insurers, or owners.
The Need for Change: Substance Abuse in the Construction Sector
We all know that a drug free workplace is a safe workplace and the union skilled trades and contractors were ahead of their time years 16 years ago, when urine-based drug testing was introduce by innovators as evidence by the MUST program, LEAD, and others.
However, times change, the drugs of choice change and the numbers of ways to “beat” the tests have changed.
It’s time again for the union skilled trades and contractors to leap ahead of the national status quo.
Recently the States of Hawaii and Georgia passed legislation to improve safety and reduce workers compensation costs through the implementation of on-site oral fluid / saliva drug screening.
The construction industry played a key role in driving these changes, especially in Hawaii. Organized labor in particular, as well as contractors, owners, and insurers recognized the following:
Drug abuse in the construction sector is as bad, if not worse than ever,
Effective drug testing, especially random drug testing is required to truly manage workplace substance abuse,
Observed specimen collection, convenience, and low cost are mandatory to ensure compliance.
It's time again for union's to put politics aside and address the issue from from a safety point of view:
Why drug test? Simple.
While 10% of employees aged 18 – 49 years abuse drugs (not including alcohol), the construction industry runs 2x-3x this rate.
With over 50% of reportable job-site accidents linked to substance abuse, it’s clear that employee safety and the corporate bottom line are sufficient reasons to implement a drug free workplace program.
A need for change
Pre-employment drug testing has become an intelligence test.
Access to the internet has made defeating drug tests an easy task. Workers are able to get information on how to “flush” their system; adulterate samples; and there are even products like the Whizinator, which uses synthetic urine undetectable by current drug testing methods, designed to defeat observed urine collection.
Random drug testing, post-incident and reasonable suspicion modes are required components of any comprehensive, effective safety program.
The goal of any drug / alcohol policy is deterrence vs. “catching” employees.
Random testing has consistently demonstrated to be singularly effective in reducing on-the-job substance abuse.
Any effective testing mode must involve direct observation of specimen collection. But observed urine collection is embarrassing and degrading to both the observed and the observer.Arguably, there are more instances of drug abusers defeating unobserved techniques, such as traditional urine-based testing, than there are “positives”.
Just look at nationwide statistics for validation. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of drug abusers are employed. Furthermore most drug testing (approx. 90%) involves traditional urine laboratory-based pre-employment testing.
Oral fluid works
Oral fluid tests are cheaper, faster and easier to use than urinalysis… and unlike urine, can not be easily defeated.
Random testing via on-site oral fluid is fast, provides results within 5-15 minutes, and averages $20 per test. It has the additional advantage of detecting current, vs. historical drug use. Oral fluid tests typically detect from within minutes of consumption up to 2-3 days for most drugs (for THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, the maximum is 24 hours.).
Urine testing can not detect drugs for up to the first several hours and is only an indicator of historical drug use. Furthermore, for THC, detection can go back as far as 30 days.
Do you as an employer really care what an otherwise dependable employee does at his/her home on the weekend?
Do you even have a right to know?
“This measure (on-site oral fluid drug testing) provides a cost effective on-the-job alternative to laboratory tests that can be costly and difficult to schedule."- Aiona, Lt. Governor, Hawaii
Also look at the true costs of urine-based random testing.
In many cases our current program requires we send our employees off site for random testing. The cost involved includes not only the hourly labor rate, probably $50/hour with benefits, but the productivity loss also. The end result is that a typical off-site urine test is truly costing a job about $300 per test, and the effectiveness is questionable at best.On-site oral fluid based testing works.
Here are actual results from a contractor who switched from urine-based to oral fluid-based drug screening:
Where do we go from here?
Occupational health, safety, and risk management professionals must assist in driving change. This groups and only this group knows what truly happens every day on our job sites.
At the end of day, they “get it”.
It’s time for safety professionals to join with all constituencies to update current drug and alcohol free workplace programs to assure compliance and effectiveness.
It’s also time for the union skilled trades and contractors to again lead the charge in effecting change.
It’s time to implement oral fluid-based testing techniques at a few “pilot sites” and demonstrate the advantage of effective drug testing programs vs. the status quo.
References:
2006 United States Department of Health – Substance Abuse and Mental Health Agency (SAMSHA) National Survey on Drug Use & Health (NHSDA)- Office of Applied Studies. (2007) Results from the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National findings (DHHS Publication No. SMA 07-4293, NSDUH Series H-32). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Peter N. Cholakis and Roger Bruce (July 2007) Drug Testing in the Workplace – A look at oral fluid-based testing. Professional Safety Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers, July 2007, 31-36
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
