Drug testing in the workplace (remote deployment)

[tniuqs]

Unfortunately in Canada, safety people are considered much more important than the medical staff and try to demand medical records from us.

Yea a 11 weekend(s) course and you too can be a Safety "person" ... protecting the employers liability, I will stick with being a Paramedic treat patients and only disclose medical information if a person is a whacked out nut job or too sick to work.

PERIOD!

[Just Plain Ruff]

I've been told I live in a different world on this topic. So I'm done.

[tniuqs]

I've been told I live in a different world on this topic. So I'm done.

Welcome to rights insane Kanukistan where a sun burned nose and application of sun screen becomes a reportable First Aid (in industry) and grounds to drug test a worker ... wtf ?

This action will directly result to not have workers report and seek timely medical assistance, if I wanted to be in Vice Squad I would be wearing a badge.

Edited July 19, 2010 by tniuqs

[Happiness]

Welcome to rights insane Kanukistan where a sun burned nose and application of sun screen becomes a reportable First Aid (in industry) and grounds to drug test a worker ... wtf ?

This action will directly result to not have workers report and seek timely medical assistance, if I wanted to be in Vice Squad I would be wearing a badge.

OK Squint I have to ask, what brought this topic to light. It sounds like you were asked to do some drug testing.

[BushyFromOz]

looks like i'm the only one who votes yes.....

[Just Plain Ruff]

looks like i'm the only one who votes yes.....

I don't see the problem here. Squint was asked to do a drug test on someone, she didn't think it was her job to do that because that made her into the Drug Cops, she stood up for her principles and now she's out of a job.

She has a terrible opinion of the safety people at her workplace.

Doing a drug test doesn't make her a drug cop, it is part of patient care and part of the company policy is to have drug testing done on an injured employee. She just objected to doing the test and she had to quit her job over the objection

But squint says there is no policy or procdure manual which is surprising to me but squint might be right.

But squint quit her job over this. Standing up for principles is a hard thing to do.

I hope that a new job comes along for squint and squint's not unemployed for too long.

Squint keeps saying I don't get it

[akflightmedic]

Hey Ruffles....Squint has a penis!! Therefore, one is to assume the "she" is actually a he.

He is one ugly chick however,, I would know as I drank beers with him and even with beer goggles it never crossed my mind.

[tniuqs]

looks like i'm the only one who votes yes.....

So your position is that you would comply with a "lay persons" ie Sub Contracted Safety Persons (point being they are separate entity) if they then request to test "with prejudice" by requesting a sample of urine from your "patient" and bet your house that then once that door is open .. then test urine for DOA.

Fact: A refusal of a "patient" to provide a sample would result in immediate termination of the workers right to work.

Further a "false positive sample" would land you in court in a wrongful dismissal suit (civil law) a "false negative sample" could return a worker to the job. Please remember on mass spec one can determine accurate levels of a "banned substance" or "medically prescribed rx" ... add to that only ETOH has legal identifiable "impaired" levels.

So Bushy your prepared to represent yourself (on your own coin) in a court that has NOTHING to do with patient care AND highly likely breaches Paramedic Patient confidentiality issues (no test court case quite yet) ... over what again ?

Further Legal FYI: In Canada no signed "waiver" of your rights (ie privacy of health information) can be used in a court of law it becomes a "doodle" with a good Lawyer, it also could burn the employer in the end and be considered "signed under duress or protest" just saying no way to tell.

To top it all off this WILL result shooting the Safety People in the foot, putting in place a most serious barrier for diligent reporting not only minor incidents but minor first aids that can be "treat and release" avoiding the entire medical legal mess.

So Bushy your on board with a self defeating policy that most likely infringes on the patients rights to privacy and disagrees with evidence based research, proving that this Drug testing in the workplace pointless,(se prior link) and your willing to put your licence/registration/careerer on the line. All this when you were actually hired under the auspice of delivering Primary Health Care and Medivac Services.

Contact me off server and I have a job for you.

Lets put this into a better Light if there is a serious incident like Major Damage or Injury / Loss of Life then the standard LEO involvement will ensue ... go figure eh ?

Ruffems:

She has a terrible opinion of the safety people at her workplace.

I have an excellent rapport with the Safety people on this site I do have major issue with the Ivory Towers trying to save "pennies" and heap ancillary duties on the contracted Medical Providers. Why because they "don't do enough" funny that I am paid for what I know not the red neck perspective if your not a "physical asset" your a waste of money only a legislated entity .. good grief.

Squints opinion (female side LOL) is if the safety people make a request to test ... then it is their responsibility to conduct the testing not medical.

Safety People will not jeopardize the integrity of my profession of a Health Care Provider and that of Paramedicine btw with more qualifications, than the vast majority, with proven good judgement to protect the interests/liability of the Prime Contractor in very "serious" medical situations.

Hey Ruffles....Squint has a penis!! Therefore, one is to assume the "she" is actually a he.

He is one ugly chick however,, I would know as I drank beers with him and even with beer goggles it never crossed my mind.

Oh you again ? ... Don't listen to AK he was drinking, tniuqs is Squints younger, hot to trot, walking wet dream, Twin Sister ! LMFAO!

cheers

Edited July 20, 2010 by tniuqs

[Just Plain Ruff]

Your excellent rapport with the safety people does not jive with what you have been saying on this forum. You blatantly point out how much you disdain those people. You may have a great rapport with those people on one face yet you are completely different in opinion here.

Sorry about the penis thing, I was actally talking in third person female and I apologize for using the third person female view. I've never seen you or seen you naked so I couldn't make male or female assumptions about you.

I agree with you on one of the points you have - if the safety person needs a drug screen then they should do it.

But seriously, the test is going to get done right? regardless of who does it. Unless you are actualy doing the test and recording the results, aren't you technically just the collector? You never did answer my question earlier, do you do drug testing on other patients, non-employee's? Isn't that part of your job? IF not then its a moot point but if you are collecting urine samples for drug tests then isn't this the same thing? Again, I'm probably missing the point but don't you have about the same chance of going to court on a patient care issue as you do with this issue?

I seriously don't see what the issue is, other than you not wanting to be a "Drug Cop"

I also think that if you refuse to collect the specimen that you can get fired is assinine and totally Retarded. Whoever thought that policy up is indeed a moron.

Safety People will not jeopardize the integrity of my profession of a Health Care Provider and that of Paramedicine btw with more qualifications, than the vast majority, with proven good judgement to protect the interests/liability of the Prime Contractor in very "serious" medical situations.

Can you explain how a safety person would jeopardize the integrity of a health care provider? I think that at times we healthcare providers do more to jeopardize it than anyone else.

So your position is that you would comply with a "lay persons" ie Sub Contracted Safety Persons (point being they are separate entity) if they then request to test "with prejudice" by requesting a sample of urine from your "patient" and bet your house that then once that door is open .. then test urine for DOA.

Yes, I would comply with the lay persons request. If that lay person was speaking for my employer and he had the power to ask me to do something, if it didn't cause a life or limb problem, I'd do what he asked.

IF the employee is clean, then it's all good right? IF they are not clean, and what I mean by clean is that they don't test positive or if they do thenthey have a doctors note showing that what they are taking was prescribed by that doctor. IF they are dirty then do you really want them working at all?

morals aside, a impaired worker is much more likly to cause an accident then a non-impaired worker. More likely to die on the job than a non impaired worker.

[Richard B the EMT]

It just dawned on me: didn't we have a similar discussion, here in the City, about EMTs and/or Paramedics taking blood samples of persons involved in vehicular accidents, to be handed over to the LEOs (the blood samples, not the patients) for them to send for processing, thereby turning EMS personnel, in effect, into the drug police? I specifically recall mention of using betadine (spelling?) or similar skin cleaning solution for the sample collection site, as using alcohol pads would give a false alcohol reading.