RNdynamic

Tell IPN that if they don't cut the crap, then you're going to contact the department of health and say they aren't doing their job and need to be audited. That usually gets your monitoring program to cooperate with you.

So is your profile picture your actual hair? Dreadlocks can look cool but if I am not mistaken they are held together by grease and dirt and the hair's natural oils? They may not be sanitary.

The ADA does quite a bit more than "only require that an employer make reasonable accommodations for a disabled person to be employed." The reasonable accommodation part is not even the most integral part of the act. The ADA broadly prevents covered employers from discriminating against persons with disabilities. This includes directly asking an applicant what illnesses they have. The act also addresses housing and transportation discrimination. The employment thing is only one part of the law. Also, I'm sorry that the state of California's monitoring program is so restrictive as to make it so "the employer must be told the nature of your disability," though I doubt that is indeed true. However, in some other states, monitoring programs do not impose those restrictions. Here in CT, there are no rules against night shift, overtime, or specialty at all. There is no narcotics restriction unless the program director decides that it is suitable for a given participant. Many people never have a keys restriction. I was a diverter and even I was allowed to work without a narcotics restriction. For those of us in my circumstances, why would an employer need to know I'm in recovery prior to the offer of employment? I can only think of one reason they would want to know -- and it is to discriminate.

Thanks for stopping by. Do you have an opinion that you're waiting to express?

You were talking about the ADA' definition of a disability. You were suggesting that addiction is excluded from protection by the ADA. Now you're switching gears and talking about a monitoring program's definition of someone who is rehabilitated. I am quite sure that the ADA is not concerned with monitoring programs or how far along someone in them is, when it comes to protecting persons with disabilities.. You say that you're sober, but are you sure that your thinking is sober too? This is wrong on all counts. First of all, my monitoring program only requires that a one-page progress report be sent quarterly, which is 4 times a year. This is the state of CT. Secondly, it is absolutely not necessary for a person in monitoring to reveal what illnesses they have or even the fact that they are in recovery. In some monitoring programs, participants may not have any addiction issues whatsoever. Some people are in the program purely due to mental illness that somehow impairs their ability to practice. Some are even in it for a physical disability. All that you are required to tell your employer is that you are in the program, and that's all. You don't have to give a reason for why you are in it, nor are you encouraged to. And you are not encouraged to tell them before you get a job offer.

Very true, unfortunately. Personal experience.

OP: the nurse who is sending emails sounds like a brown-nosing weasel. Take the criticism constructively but don't even bother responding to the email. She is hoping for attention. That is why she CCed the email to the managers. She's not letting them know about your issues for the sake of helping them; she's doing it in order to ingratiate herself with them. Ignore her. The second she sees weakness in you, she will exploit it.

No, it hasn't.

Not enough information to help you. What was the court's disposition? Why did the board say they revoked your license?

Hppy, did you even read what you posted. Quote: An individual who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs is not an individual with a disability” when the employer acts on the basis of such use. An employer may not discriminate against a person who has a history of drug addiction but who is not currently using drugs and who has been rehabilitated. That's exactly the population in a monitoring program: people with a history of addiction who are not currently engaging in the use of drugs. It is not specifically excluded from the ADA, as you mention, but actually explicitly included if we take the language you are quoting to be true.

Addiction is considered a mental illness Hppy.

Those of us in monitoring are probably familiar with random drug screening companies like FirstLab or Recovery Trek where you call a hotline or sign into a website each day where it tells you that you are selected for a random drug test. The random nature of the tests is obviously designed to prevent people from "gaming" the system by planning alcohol and drug use during gaps between tests, because you can be selected at any time. However, why can't we have a day's notice before the we're selected? It would help many of us plan errands and so forth if we know ahead of time that we're going to have to drop by the lab site. Would it really be asking a lot if we could check in a day before the test? I don't see how this would compromise the randomness in any significant way. At the very least, why can't we check in during the evening before? I feel like people wouldn't be as stressed out if they had a little more advance notice and people wouldn't forget to check in nearly as much. Thoughts??

She can call in for whatever reason she wants. As for "making someone else stay over," it isn't the OP's job to provide staffing coverage for absences. That job belongs to management. A lot of people in this thread need to get their thinking straightened out.

To everyone saying that not enough sleep is an excuse, or that the OP is hurting her coworkers by calling out, or whatever else: It's none of her coworkers business why she is calling out. She could be calling out because she's having a bad hair day and it's still none of their business. Her PTO, her privilege. If she's still in compliant with the attendance policy, then it isn't any of her coworkers concern if she calls out for lack of sleep. Truth.

Yes, its acceptable. You don't have to say why you are calling in however.

Assistance programs are synonymous with monitoring programs. The monitoring program in my state is actually called the Healthcare Assistance Education and Intervention Network (HAVEN). They monitor you and assist you in recovery. They also manage your treatment. The alternative to the program is discipline by the board, if so indicated. They certainly cannot be called employee assistance programs either as the contract you sign with them takes effect without any regard to your employment status. In most states, the monitoring program is an independent nonprofit organization that is created through state law and works loosely with the states licensure board and receives referrals from them. Most commonly participants have struggled with substance abuse but they may also be in the program for mental or physical impairments to their practice. So, this thread is not a bait and switch ; rather, you seemed to have needed more education on the subject, which is okay. Also I made it very clear from the outset of this thread that I am talking about people who do not have restrictions on their license. You may need to reread.

Not everyone in assistance program has substance abuse problems. There are other reasons for being in such programs. You're making an assumption about the participants in such programs accompanied by a lack of evidence. I mean this only to be helpful: do you require that I break down the original post in more basic terminology? Your statements about child paraphelia and vision impairment are false equivalencies and are not germane to the topic at hand. As well, the ADA covers those receiving treatment for addiction and mental illness and despite whatever relation they may have to a job, you are still prevented from directly asking about these things. License restrictions are not the topic of this thread. This thread pertains strictly to confidential assistance programs. The majority of the people in these programs have fully active, unencumbered licenses without any disciplinary action or history thereof. If you've been in the hiring business for as long as you say, then how come you don't seem to know the difference between these things? Don't take this the wrong way but if I'm reading your profile correctly, you aren't even a nurse. You're just a risk manager -- a civilian. This thread primarily applies to nursing managers who themselves are licensed professionals and who are in a position of hiring other nurses. It also, if you care to read carefully, applies strictly to nurses in assistance programs who do not have practice restrictions. On that note, if you can answer what purpose is served by stating that you are a participant in such an assistance program during an interview, I'm willing to hear you out. Otherwise, your perspective doesn't seem to be adding anything to our conversation. I also sense that you may be carrying around some baggage, based on some of your phrasing -- "we could talk about if we can work around it or not." Work around what?

No idea.. maybe not though .

Your hospital probably has a corporate compliance hotline to report things anonymously. Just use that. Don't do something that may result in you yourself being alienated by reporting him directly, as many in this thread are doing.

But you haven't actually said why this is important information about a person's past. Not everyone in an assistance program was diverting. Not everyone in an assistance program suffers from addiction. Some people are in such programs purely because of mental illness. Some are in it because they have a physical disability even.

You haven't actually provided any substance here. If it doesn't affect you or the employee's ability to practice, why do you need to know? Also, people with addiction and mental illness are covered by the ADA.

The topic is pretty straightforward. I've always been advised that when job searching, a good time to disclose that you are in a monitoring program is at the close of an interview when you think you have caught the interest of the prospective employer. However, this seems like self-sabotage to me. If you think you've caught the interest of the employer, why finish the interview off on a note that raises the suspicion of past substance use or mental illness? I feel as though this is not a good impression to leave. It seems to me, and people may disagree with this, that a better time to mention that you are in a monitoring program is when you have received an offer. Where I live, monitoring programs do not impose restrictions on shifts or overtime, so I feel that, as long as you do not have a narcotics restriction, then the fact that you participate in a confidential monitoring program should not really have any bearing on an employer's decision to hire you. So why tell them before you receive an offer? As well, I feel that an employer would be very unlikely to rescind a formal offer once they have given it, by mere virtue of you informing them that you're with such a program, out of concern of violating discrimination laws against persons with disabilities, which indeed apply to persons who receive treatment for addiction or mental illness. What are your thoughts on this? What have you done in the past and what were your experiences?

The other issue I have with the assistance programs is this -- why must they drag on for so many years? If after a year of treatment someone has been clean and sober and functioning well, why do they have to spend another four years being barred from working in certain specialties or shifts?

File a lawsuit against your preceptor.

Yup, simple as that.