Drug testing in the workplace (remote deployment)

[rock_shoes]

Again, if I misunderstood or missed Squint telling me and the community that he had to run the test also then I apologize but if he did not give that piece of the pie then you can see where I was coming from.

No the nurses and myself with collecting the tests never saw what the results were. If Squint was running the tests and then seeing the results then it's part of the medical record and should not be released.

This is exactly what we're getting at. It's my understanding that Squint was expected to collect the sample, run the test, and disclose the results of said test to non-medical personnel (ie. the already noted "safety officer").

[tniuqs]

tniuqs, on 21 July 2010 - 04:56 AM, said:

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 an impaired 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.

<edit> Did you want to be the legal poster boy on that "minor" and yet to be legally established situation ?

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.

Squint, with a rant like that I'm not even going to bother replying

how dissappointing.

Oh Gosh your feelings got hurt ? Heck that is not a rant ?

RANT Definition:

Squints Rationale: Its not a rant because your missing the spit flying and the foam in the corners of my mouth with arms flaying in the air .. as that would be a true rant.

BUT the points above are the very realistic, medical legal and rational fallout that could result and the outcomes of setting a precedent in Industrial Provision of ALS care in Kanukistan.

Now with some perspective (you can't even guess what this very difficult choice cost me, a 2 year commitment and salary in the very lucrative Oilpatch) but since I have divorced myself from this uncomfortable situation I will add a possible "explanation" of the behavior of the Safety Persons at the Top.

In British Columbia the "norm" and regulated level of care has been an Advanced First aid course (called the OFA level 3 (Occupational First Aid) and level 3 is the "transportation endorsement of the victim" This level of huge accomplishment is a 76 hour course and mandatory even if one is an RN or an Advanced Care Paramedic ... to top it off this level is not capable of doing a BP, so this high level of "Medical Care Provider" are very often used historically for many ancillary duties, so why not ask them to save a buck and do drug testing in the workplace ... eh ?

The Safety people "in the Ivory Towers" focus is on cost efficacy and are grossly medically/legally misinformed and very arrogant in many cases, so with the dollar saved because the contracted employer can not provide Licensed / Registered, and experienced ACP willing to put their careers on the line = Default to the Advanced First Aid level and who hoo look at the "cost" savings, well until there is a REAL LIFE THREATENING EMERGENCY. This lovely location is 3 hours (by rugged road from hell) or a hour flight by chopper to a "outreach clinic" then another 3 hours by air in fixed wing *minimum* to a real hospital ps a world of hurt in fact.

I am just trying to wake up the Ivory Tower ... so be "disappointed" Bushy that some dedicated professionals dare do draw a line in the sand.

cheers

[BushyFromOz]

no feeling hurt here mate, i just come to expect more from you.