Drug Testing

Thanks for the info and good luck on your recovery. great job!

I am an ADON at a LTC. I am partially responsible for hiring staff. We do pre-employment drug testing at our facility. And I agree with CCM, I am not going to pass up hiring someone for the occasional use of marijuana. What I have done in the past is confronted the person about the positive test and tell them they will be re-tested in a month and I expect them to have a clean test at that time.

Let the flames begin.

I am an ADON at a LTC. I am partially responsible for hiring staff. We do pre-employment drug testing at our facility. And I agree with CCM, I am not going to pass up hiring someone for the occasional use of marijuana. What I have done in the past is confronted the person about the positive test and tell them they will be re-tested in a month and I expect them to have a clean test at that time.

Let the flames begin.

Okay, I decide not to discuss this. Considering I like to remain professional. I think I'm ending my participation in this thread ... :) have fun :)

I am an ADON at a LTC. I am partially responsible for hiring staff. We do pre-employment drug testing at our facility. And I agree with CCM, I am not going to pass up hiring someone for the occasional use of marijuana. What I have done in the past is confronted the person about the positive test and tell them they will be re-tested in a month and I expect them to have a clean test at that time.

Let the flames begin.

Okay, so exactly how do you determine whether someone is an occasional user? If a person does show pos for drug use on the test, what exact criterion do you use to determine casual or otherwise? Really, I am curious, is your tester able to measure concentration levels or some other form to make this "Casual user" determination?

Is it not your responsibility to ensure that the people you hire are competent, drug free and will remain so under your supervision?

Have you considered the ramifications of knowingly hiring a supposedly "Casual user" and that casual user screws up? I think you know the answer to that.

i have my asbestos suit on..... i am wondering if those of you in recovery feel the need of the threat of random drug testing to help in maintaining your sobriety?.....because i have indeed known persons who were pot smokers and maintained regular employment.....none known to me in nursing, though i have suspected.....

i have my asbestos suit on..... i am wondering if those of you in recovery feel the need of the threat of random drug testing to help in maintaining your sobriety?.....because i have indeed known persons who were pot smokers and maintained regular employment.....none known to me in nursing, though i have suspected.....

Hey Morte - I am in recovery and have been since 1999. In working in the hospital setting, it is indeed a deterrent to have the possibility of a drug screen in case of a "slip". I have been called for a drug screen while at work on 2 occassions after a ward clerk saw me taking my meds. She had been clued in about my drug history by our DON. I was working at a specialty hospital with about 50 beds. Both times she witnessed me taking my BP med. My UDS was negative, and she was terminated not too long after my 2nd drug screen for a dirty drug screen. Imagine that.

One of the girls who entered the program after me was caught after a dirty drug screen. Sweet girl, and a wonderful nurse, but ...

Anne, RNC

Is it not your responsibility to ensure that the people you hire are competent, drug free and will remain so under your supervision?

Competent, yes. Drug free? Why? Not everyone who takes a pain med is an addict and not everyone who has a drink on occasion is an alcoholic.

I recently worked with an RN who submitted to a random drug screen when the employer requested it. She tested pos for MJ and immed lost her job and her ability to practice nursing. She is a grandma who had "revisited" the 70s with some old friends at a birthday celebration (they were celebrating the big 55) the weekend before. She lost her job and her ability to work for more than one year, because they smoked a joint rather than drink martinis.

She was ashamed and embarrassed. She, of course, had to jump through all of the appropriate hoops in order to get re-employed. She is unable to return to hospice field work because of it. Will this experience change the way she lives her life, yeah, she probably will never let her guard down again...but was that the intent? Hospice lost a wonderful nurse.

Certainly no professional is going to condone the use of substances during work hours which would impair mentation. It is unfortunate, however, that otherwise excellent nurses (or other professionals) are sacrificed for something which most likely in no way affects their ability to do their jobs safely and competently.

I don't want to work with persons who have substance abuse problems. When there are problems it is generally evident...tardiness, absenteism, incomplete or inadequate work, mood swings, interpersonal problems, etc...we all have seen these things in coworkers, friends, family, or acquaintences. I will intervene AT ANY TIME that I fear a professional is impaired on the clock...it is my job. I just don't really care if they drink or smoke on their time off.

And I continue to believe that random testing (no cause or suspicion of wrong doing) is not okay. Where do we get to draw the line as citizens of the USA?

Just because I have nothing to fear doesn't mean that I should have agree to be subjected to a search.

One further reminder of the rights and freedoms that we are SUPPOSED to enjoy as American citizens...the 4th amendment to our constitution...

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Random drug testing, without cause is unconstitutional, IMHO.

I disagree with "random" drug tests. You should be tested only for cause and it better be good cause. I have had to go for random drug testing when there was diversion in a place I worked at many years ago. They loaded all of us nurses up in a van and took us to a out-patient lab. There we were, the administrator in his three piece suit in front, and the corporate dude in his three piece suit in the back and all us nurses in the middle lined up going in this lab- looked more like the pimps and their "ladies of the night" than nurses going for a drug test. Frankly, I was embarrased, although I had done nothing wrong. I think it was the way it was handled because we were called at home and told we were having a"Mandatory meeting" and if you didn't show up you would be immediately fired....Most places now have the agreement you sign when you are hired that you can be subject to random testing, so you really have no choice if you want the job.

One further reminder of the rights and freedoms that we are SUPPOSED to enjoy as American citizens...the 4th amendment to our constitution...

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Random drug testing, without cause is unconstitutional, IMHO.

Just to play devils advocate in this long debated issue. In the U.S versus Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989). The U.S. Supreme court decided public safety outweighed the individuals right and expectation to privacy.

the Court held that the government is allowed to conduct drug tests without individualized suspicion when there is a "special need" that outweighs the individual's privacy interest. In Skinner, the court found that public safety was such a special need.

For the medical field many cases have been brought to court arguing the 4th violation. The Von Raab case was used as precedence to open the argument In 1991 CA, AFGE vs. Derwinsky. Ca ruled that certain medical professionals, nurses included were also found to be safety sensitive and therefore bound to submit to drug testing in best interest of public safety. Just thought I would throw that out there as food for thought :)