Latest Likes For Jolie

Latest Likes For Jolie

Jolie 23,291 Views

Joined Oct 17, '01. Posts: 9,431 (48% Liked) Likes: 13,234

Sorted By Last Like Received (Max 500)
  • Jul 21

    This is just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth.

    Chicago is home to a number of well-regarded Nurse Practitioner education programs, most of which are offered "on site" and include clinical placements as part of the planned curriculum.

    I understand that you will be attending a program in another city (on-line or in person?) and will need to find your own preceptorship in the Chicago area. I honestly don't believe that will be an easy task. The institutions that are best suited to providing such experiences are already doing so for the established programs in the area. Other places of employment are not likely as well suited to providing educational supervision and experiences, or simply not interested in doing so. Precepting is a difficult, time consuming task that challenges even those well prepared for it. I don't see many employers willingly taking on this role for anyone other than a current employee or a prospective one.

    I believe that the requirement to find one's own preceptorship should be thoroughly investigated prior to enrolling or spending any money on an education program. It would be a deal breaker for me.

  • Jul 12

    If you are certain that you will not attend, simply contact them by the usual means of communication (such as an e-mail to your admissions representative) and state that you appreciate their confidence in you, but you will not be attending.

    I doubt that you will be able to use the drug screen for any other purpose. Any future employer will likely insist on one done under their supervision, but $150 is a small price to pay for avoiding overwhelming student debt, for which I applaud you

    Best of luck to you!

  • Jul 7

    Quote from Julius Seizure
    I've never heard of this "safety sensitive" rule where they can refuse to hire you based on any certain (federally legal) prescription that is found in your drug screen (which you may not even take regularly scheduled prior to a shift).

    Does anyone have examples of what kinds of substances would be on a list like that? Or where I could find more info?

    Can you imagine if a Catholic hospital had a policy that they would not hire anyone who used prescription birth control pills?
    There is no single list of "safety-sensitive medications. The drugs of concern to one employer in a given setting may not be an issue for another employer in a different setting. Those that I know to have been reviewed by various employers have included medications with a high likelihood to impair one's level of alertness, reaction time, judgment, etc. Some significant factors that posters may not be considering include whether the individual works alone or with others, whether s/he operates potentially hazardous equipment or drives in the course of employment, whether the employee is solely responsible for the well-being of minor children or dependent adults at work, the strenuousness of physical activity and cognitive demands of the job, and whether the job requires irregular hours or on-call time that could make it impossible to time medications so that they don't interfere with working hours.

    I was recently involved in a situation where a candidate's drug screen indicated use of a prescribed controlled substance. Because of the sensitive nature of the individual's work (which I won't disclose here), the employee was notified that a discussion with his/her healthcare provider was necessary in order to determine fitness for the job. It was the candidate's physician who indicated that the side effects of the medication rendered the candidate capable of the work required and advised not to hire for THAT position, although there were other that were suitable.

    This type of consultation is allowable and appropriate under the ADA, and protects all parties involved: the candidate, the employer and the individuals served by the employee.

    As for the comment on Catholic employers dis-allowing contraception on urine drug screens, I assume you are trying to engage in hyperbole.

  • Jul 7

    Quote from NotAllWhoWandeRN
    No, they can't. The purpose of a drug screen is to identify people who are using substances illegally, period, and it was wrong (possibly illegal, but I can't say with 100% certainty) to disclose drug results before they were verified.

    The hospital CAN have a policy that you cannot work under the influence of a controlled substance, but they CANNOT refuse to hire you for taking something you were prescribed while not at work.

    OP, they've done you wrong, but it isn't rude of Pangea to point out that your anxiety and panic (I'm not trying to label you - just using your words) can affect your perceptions of the situation. Employee health isn't who you work with on the unit. The nurse recruiter isn't who you work with on the unit. HR isn't who you work with on the unit. But it will not help to harass people for not getting things fixed quickly enough. You said you wouldn't wait until the next day because the employee who deals with these things was gone for the day? (hard to tell, you said they leave at 3:30 but didn't say when you called) Then you called the recruiter twice in a row then e-mailed? Your fear and frustration are legitimate because they clearly crossed a line, but if your immediate response is panic, you are only increasing their concern that something is wrong, and feeding into any prejudice they may have. If your goal is to keep the job offer, put on a good face for them - even though they don't deserve it - and give them a day, not 15 minutes, to get things fixed.

    If something like this happens again, you may want to simply say to HR (or whoever calls you besides the testing company) that you do not use any drugs illegally and you will contact the testing company to discuss results. Then the testing company will mark you as negative, and all the employer will know is that there was some sort of error.

    You may also want to contact the testing company to file a complaint. Whoever returned the results to your employer without giving time to verify prescriptions is the one who started this mess.
    My post did not address the legality of disclosing the drug screen results prior to verification. Per federal law and the employer's P&P that may very well have been the wrong thing to do.

    But I stand by my assertion that a prescription is not a blanket "OK" for any substance that is detected on a drug screen. There are medications that have the potential to impair a worker, regardless of legitimate medical use, and under those conditions, an employer does not have to hire the individual for that safety-sensitive job. To do so would invite an incident (and avoidable liability) compromising worker and/or client safety and force the employer to address it retroactively by removing the worker from a position s/he never should have been assigned.

    The ADA may come into play in the instance of a worker with a legitimate prescription for a medication with the potential to impair safe job performance. If the worker claims a disability covered by ADA, then additional steps would need to be taken to protect employment rights, but even that is not a "given" that the employee must be hired for a position with significant safety concerns.

  • Jul 6

    I am not an expert on drug screening policies and procedures, but it is possible that the applicant was positive for a substance that would have been deemed unacceptable regardless of prescription.

    An employer can disallow medications that might potentially impair an individual in a highly sensitive position regardless of prescription.

  • Jul 6

    I am not an expert on drug screening policies and procedures, but it is possible that the applicant was positive for a substance that would have been deemed unacceptable regardless of prescription.

    An employer can disallow medications that might potentially impair an individual in a highly sensitive position regardless of prescription.

  • Jul 5

    Quote from NotAllWhoWandeRN
    No, they can't. The purpose of a drug screen is to identify people who are using substances illegally, period, and it was wrong (possibly illegal, but I can't say with 100% certainty) to disclose drug results before they were verified.

    The hospital CAN have a policy that you cannot work under the influence of a controlled substance, but they CANNOT refuse to hire you for taking something you were prescribed while not at work.

    OP, they've done you wrong, but it isn't rude of Pangea to point out that your anxiety and panic (I'm not trying to label you - just using your words) can affect your perceptions of the situation. Employee health isn't who you work with on the unit. The nurse recruiter isn't who you work with on the unit. HR isn't who you work with on the unit. But it will not help to harass people for not getting things fixed quickly enough. You said you wouldn't wait until the next day because the employee who deals with these things was gone for the day? (hard to tell, you said they leave at 3:30 but didn't say when you called) Then you called the recruiter twice in a row then e-mailed? Your fear and frustration are legitimate because they clearly crossed a line, but if your immediate response is panic, you are only increasing their concern that something is wrong, and feeding into any prejudice they may have. If your goal is to keep the job offer, put on a good face for them - even though they don't deserve it - and give them a day, not 15 minutes, to get things fixed.

    If something like this happens again, you may want to simply say to HR (or whoever calls you besides the testing company) that you do not use any drugs illegally and you will contact the testing company to discuss results. Then the testing company will mark you as negative, and all the employer will know is that there was some sort of error.

    You may also want to contact the testing company to file a complaint. Whoever returned the results to your employer without giving time to verify prescriptions is the one who started this mess.
    My post did not address the legality of disclosing the drug screen results prior to verification. Per federal law and the employer's P&P that may very well have been the wrong thing to do.

    But I stand by my assertion that a prescription is not a blanket "OK" for any substance that is detected on a drug screen. There are medications that have the potential to impair a worker, regardless of legitimate medical use, and under those conditions, an employer does not have to hire the individual for that safety-sensitive job. To do so would invite an incident (and avoidable liability) compromising worker and/or client safety and force the employer to address it retroactively by removing the worker from a position s/he never should have been assigned.

    The ADA may come into play in the instance of a worker with a legitimate prescription for a medication with the potential to impair safe job performance. If the worker claims a disability covered by ADA, then additional steps would need to be taken to protect employment rights, but even that is not a "given" that the employee must be hired for a position with significant safety concerns.

  • Jul 3

    I lived in this area for 1/2 my life. I'm not surprised in the least. Not only is this institution poorly regarded, so is the hospital system to which it belongs. I never considered working there, and never would, even if it meant greeting customers at Wal-Mart instead. My patient care experiences (had to go there based upon insurance at the time) were abysmal.

    Like some other posters, I wonder why nurses didn't simply walk out or sit down and refuse to participate, especially given the hospital's well-known and long-standing poor reputation. I know I will ruffle some feathers with this comment, but so be it. Adult professionals who refuse to set (and enforce) limits invite poor treatment by others, and don't have much credibility when complaining after the fact. This was NOT an urgent patient care or critical staffing situation. Nor does it seem to have been a new-employee training session, which might explain some staff members' reluctance to speak up. This "inservice" appears to have been geared towards nurses of all levels of experience and seniority. Shame on them for not refusing to participate right there and then, especially given that they are unionized. What good is union representation if it does not empower employees to object to obvious wrongs in the moment?

  • Jul 3

    I lived in this area for 1/2 my life. I'm not surprised in the least. Not only is this institution poorly regarded, so is the hospital system to which it belongs. I never considered working there, and never would, even if it meant greeting customers at Wal-Mart instead. My patient care experiences (had to go there based upon insurance at the time) were abysmal.

    Like some other posters, I wonder why nurses didn't simply walk out or sit down and refuse to participate, especially given the hospital's well-known and long-standing poor reputation. I know I will ruffle some feathers with this comment, but so be it. Adult professionals who refuse to set (and enforce) limits invite poor treatment by others, and don't have much credibility when complaining after the fact. This was NOT an urgent patient care or critical staffing situation. Nor does it seem to have been a new-employee training session, which might explain some staff members' reluctance to speak up. This "inservice" appears to have been geared towards nurses of all levels of experience and seniority. Shame on them for not refusing to participate right there and then, especially given that they are unionized. What good is union representation if it does not empower employees to object to obvious wrongs in the moment?

  • Jul 3

    If anyone else addressed this, I missed it.

    You did the right thing by using your critical thinking skills to question a seemingly inappropriate set of orders. I don't believe that it is within your scope of practice as a medication aid to contact the physician for clarification, and certainly not to take a verbal order altering or discontinuing the medication.

    You went as far as you could by calling this to the attention of the nurse, and she met her responsibility by clarifying the order with the physician. You both considered the patient's well being, which is the ultimate goal.

    Those who are running around panicking are doing so because they have a poor understanding of of their legal and professional practice obligations, a poor understanding of the medication in question, or because they know they screwed up and are trying to deflect attention.

    Not your circus.

  • Jul 2

    I lived in this area for 1/2 my life. I'm not surprised in the least. Not only is this institution poorly regarded, so is the hospital system to which it belongs. I never considered working there, and never would, even if it meant greeting customers at Wal-Mart instead. My patient care experiences (had to go there based upon insurance at the time) were abysmal.

    Like some other posters, I wonder why nurses didn't simply walk out or sit down and refuse to participate, especially given the hospital's well-known and long-standing poor reputation. I know I will ruffle some feathers with this comment, but so be it. Adult professionals who refuse to set (and enforce) limits invite poor treatment by others, and don't have much credibility when complaining after the fact. This was NOT an urgent patient care or critical staffing situation. Nor does it seem to have been a new-employee training session, which might explain some staff members' reluctance to speak up. This "inservice" appears to have been geared towards nurses of all levels of experience and seniority. Shame on them for not refusing to participate right there and then, especially given that they are unionized. What good is union representation if it does not empower employees to object to obvious wrongs in the moment?

  • Jul 1

    Quote from NotAllWhoWandeRN
    No, they can't. The purpose of a drug screen is to identify people who are using substances illegally, period, and it was wrong (possibly illegal, but I can't say with 100% certainty) to disclose drug results before they were verified.

    The hospital CAN have a policy that you cannot work under the influence of a controlled substance, but they CANNOT refuse to hire you for taking something you were prescribed while not at work.

    OP, they've done you wrong, but it isn't rude of Pangea to point out that your anxiety and panic (I'm not trying to label you - just using your words) can affect your perceptions of the situation. Employee health isn't who you work with on the unit. The nurse recruiter isn't who you work with on the unit. HR isn't who you work with on the unit. But it will not help to harass people for not getting things fixed quickly enough. You said you wouldn't wait until the next day because the employee who deals with these things was gone for the day? (hard to tell, you said they leave at 3:30 but didn't say when you called) Then you called the recruiter twice in a row then e-mailed? Your fear and frustration are legitimate because they clearly crossed a line, but if your immediate response is panic, you are only increasing their concern that something is wrong, and feeding into any prejudice they may have. If your goal is to keep the job offer, put on a good face for them - even though they don't deserve it - and give them a day, not 15 minutes, to get things fixed.

    If something like this happens again, you may want to simply say to HR (or whoever calls you besides the testing company) that you do not use any drugs illegally and you will contact the testing company to discuss results. Then the testing company will mark you as negative, and all the employer will know is that there was some sort of error.

    You may also want to contact the testing company to file a complaint. Whoever returned the results to your employer without giving time to verify prescriptions is the one who started this mess.
    My post did not address the legality of disclosing the drug screen results prior to verification. Per federal law and the employer's P&P that may very well have been the wrong thing to do.

    But I stand by my assertion that a prescription is not a blanket "OK" for any substance that is detected on a drug screen. There are medications that have the potential to impair a worker, regardless of legitimate medical use, and under those conditions, an employer does not have to hire the individual for that safety-sensitive job. To do so would invite an incident (and avoidable liability) compromising worker and/or client safety and force the employer to address it retroactively by removing the worker from a position s/he never should have been assigned.

    The ADA may come into play in the instance of a worker with a legitimate prescription for a medication with the potential to impair safe job performance. If the worker claims a disability covered by ADA, then additional steps would need to be taken to protect employment rights, but even that is not a "given" that the employee must be hired for a position with significant safety concerns.

  • Jul 1

    I am not an expert on drug screening policies and procedures, but it is possible that the applicant was positive for a substance that would have been deemed unacceptable regardless of prescription.

    An employer can disallow medications that might potentially impair an individual in a highly sensitive position regardless of prescription.

  • Jul 1

    Quote from Julius Seizure
    I've never heard of this "safety sensitive" rule where they can refuse to hire you based on any certain (federally legal) prescription that is found in your drug screen (which you may not even take regularly scheduled prior to a shift).

    Does anyone have examples of what kinds of substances would be on a list like that? Or where I could find more info?

    Can you imagine if a Catholic hospital had a policy that they would not hire anyone who used prescription birth control pills?
    There is no single list of "safety-sensitive medications. The drugs of concern to one employer in a given setting may not be an issue for another employer in a different setting. Those that I know to have been reviewed by various employers have included medications with a high likelihood to impair one's level of alertness, reaction time, judgment, etc. Some significant factors that posters may not be considering include whether the individual works alone or with others, whether s/he operates potentially hazardous equipment or drives in the course of employment, whether the employee is solely responsible for the well-being of minor children or dependent adults at work, the strenuousness of physical activity and cognitive demands of the job, and whether the job requires irregular hours or on-call time that could make it impossible to time medications so that they don't interfere with working hours.

    I was recently involved in a situation where a candidate's drug screen indicated use of a prescribed controlled substance. Because of the sensitive nature of the individual's work (which I won't disclose here), the employee was notified that a discussion with his/her healthcare provider was necessary in order to determine fitness for the job. It was the candidate's physician who indicated that the side effects of the medication rendered the candidate capable of the work required and advised not to hire for THAT position, although there were other that were suitable.

    This type of consultation is allowable and appropriate under the ADA, and protects all parties involved: the candidate, the employer and the individuals served by the employee.

    As for the comment on Catholic employers dis-allowing contraception on urine drug screens, I assume you are trying to engage in hyperbole.

  • Jun 30

    If anyone else addressed this, I missed it.

    You did the right thing by using your critical thinking skills to question a seemingly inappropriate set of orders. I don't believe that it is within your scope of practice as a medication aid to contact the physician for clarification, and certainly not to take a verbal order altering or discontinuing the medication.

    You went as far as you could by calling this to the attention of the nurse, and she met her responsibility by clarifying the order with the physician. You both considered the patient's well being, which is the ultimate goal.

    Those who are running around panicking are doing so because they have a poor understanding of of their legal and professional practice obligations, a poor understanding of the medication in question, or because they know they screwed up and are trying to deflect attention.

    Not your circus.


close
close