Denied employment at agency due to ordered prescriptions - page 2
Hello everybody. First of all I would like to say I think this website is great. I've been using it throughout RN school, and recently I decided to make an account after getting my RN License. So,... Read More
2Apr 24, '12 by HorseshoeQuote from RNwithHonorsI can't add anything that hasn't already been said. I think you are wise to wean off your controlled substances, even though theoretically you shouldn't have to.The situation is this...
My final semester ended in December. I was literally sought out by the Director of the acute-care floor where I did my preceptorship to start working as soon as I had my RN License. I completed all the paperwork for hire, took the NCLEX in January & passed in 75 questions, and informed my other job, of 8 continuous years, that I would be moving on to be a newly employed RN.
But this is the second thread I have come across where someone makes a point of how they passed NCLEX in 75 questions as though this is something which should figure in hiring decisions or which should indicate the competence of the nurse. I'm really puzzled by this. Are nursing schools pushing this train of thought?
I wish you good luck and hope you come back and post when you do find a great job!
0Apr 24, '12 by roser13Quote from stargazer88Disagree. OP's test came back positive for benzo's. What if she hadn't disclosed her script? I suppose in this case the outcome is the same in either scenario, but I'm certain that in most cases, failure to disclose scripts can only lead to trouble.Happened to me too. My dream job down the tubes. Lesson learned. Don't disclose anything. They ask you to list your meds like it's no big deal. A negative drug screen comes back but then the employer pulls out the list you wrote and says, so what about these meds? It's a big farce when people tell you "as long as you have a legal RX, no problem". The nursing shortage is over. The days are gone when as long as you were an RN and breathing, you were hired. When I first graduated, I was offered jobs at every single hospital I applied to. I could be picky. I'm even thinking of applying at wal mart and Mcdonalds just to have a paycheck. Sad.
2Apr 24, '12 by Meriwhen, ASN, BSN, RN Senior ModeratorQuote from roser13I agree. Either way the OP's test would have been positive...better the employer knew upfront about why than for them to be blindsided with it after the fact, because after seeing an unexpected positive they may not give the OP a chance to explain.Disagree. OP's test came back positive for benzo's. What if she hadn't disclosed her script? I suppose in this case the outcome is the same in either scenario, but I'm certain that in most cases, failure to disclose scripts can only lead to trouble.
And in most cases, the OP would not have had any problem with the positive if they knew she had a legit script for the meds. Unfortunately, different facilities have different standards regarding positives, and having a script isn't always bulletproof protection against disciplinary action
OP: I hope you find something soon. Best of luck as you keep hunting!
0Apr 24, '12 by classicdame Guidethey probably have a policy based on malpractice insurance company's contract with the hospital. In other words, you are a risk because you have the potential to be loaded when you work, take more than prescribed, steal from patients---Not that you would, but they have id'd you as a risk.
4Apr 24, '12 by caliotter3The topic at hand is your use of controlled substances. Your grades in school, your school's treatment of your situation, how well you did in clinical, your job while in school, all had nothing to do with the fact that you tested positive and the employer chose to apply their own criteria to that fact.
3Apr 24, '12 by CalderI think you'll only get the answers you're looking for by consulting a lawyer who specializes in employment law, particularly the Americans with Disabilities Act.Last edit by Calder on Apr 24, '12 : Reason: clarification
4Apr 24, '12 by not.done.yet GuideThe only way the Americans with Disabilities Act would come into play here is if there were reasonable accomodations that the employer could make that they are refusing to. There is no reasonable accomodation in nursing for testing positive for benzos if the employer policy is to not hire those with a positive drug screen for any reason. Being on narcotics for anxiety and pain are not protected disabilities, particularly not in nursing, in which the potential for impairment is high. I think pursuing this legally would be expensive and futile. Best to move on and find an employer who isn't quite so uptight.
1May 5, '12 by RNwithHonorsI know that the biases of Employers such as the one who previously denied me employment
are secondary to the long documented history of FAR TOO MANY RN's who were in fact impaired while
at work. I mean, for heavens' sakes: look at the CA BRN for the month of March alone in the disciplinary
actions portion of their website (so many poor examples of RN's who get high at work, false documenting and stealing meds etc)
It's a bit of a culture shock to me, as in all of my years in pharmacy I have never stole any medication..
Not even a single Claritin! lol
But I digress..
I guess it's always seemed common sense to me that to work with a patient
I must have a clear and sharp mind. (whether in pharmacy or nursing)
Metaphorically speaking: I never drink and drive because I dont want to die or harm any others; I never ingested prescribed psychoactive substance while working with patients because I care for them and their well being..
However, after the 30 year+ Epidemic of RN Drug Abuse... I don't blame any institution who is "uptight"
in their selective process.. Hypervigilence naturally develops after recurrent trauma (RN administrators are people too).
Again I don't blame the hospital, I see the bigger picture.
Btw, I will be happy to let you know once I'm lucky to get my first RN job. = )
Im applying "hypervigilantly" ; )
24May 5, '12 by OCNRN63Quote from bluedevil,dnphmmm...i guess we shouldn't hire diabetics either. if their blood sugar spikes or bottoms out, their judgement could be impaired. wouldn't want to hire epileptics; if they seize they could inadvertently harm a patient. asthmatics/copders would be a bad bet too; they could get too sob to function...and what if they coughed all over a patient? yuck! someone with a cancer history could have a recurrence, and that would be too expensive for the hospital.why not stop taking them? i wouldn't hire someone on benzos either. jus sayin.
really, we should just hire perfect people who have no physical or emotional issues. and if an employee does develop a problem, we should just kick him/her to the curb. there are plenty of young new grads to take their place.
2May 5, '12 by BlueDevil,DNPI'm not sure I'd go that far, lol. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if things continue to trend in that direction.
It's a cold cruel world out there. If something were interfering with my ability to earn my livelihood, I'd modify whatever factors I could. Things that are beyond one's control are just that.