Next month, the institution where I am employed will be
implementing a mandatory drug-testing policy for all employees.
There are concerns among the staff here about the accuracy of the
technology to be used. Do any of the subscribers to this list
already have similar programs in place at their institutions, and
can they comment on how they are working?
      The policy consists of an initial test for the presence of
illegal drugs in urine through an immunoassay method which
meets the requirements of the federal Health and Human Services
Administration (presumably the enzyme multiplied immunoassay
technique also known as EMIT d.a.u., now considered state-of-
the-art by many laboratories).  The test is simple-minded in
nature: positive or negative.  Positive specimens are to be
subjected to gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS)
analysis to confirm the results.  These results will then be reviewed
by a Medical Review Officer (MRO) who will determine whether
there is a legitimate medical or other explanation for the positive
result.  The decision of the MRO will be final.
      Employees who refuse to submit to the drug testing,
adulterate specimens or otherwise interfere with the testing
process, or refuse to enter and complete an approved
rehabilitation program will be terminated as a voluntary quit.
      It has been pointed out by staff members here that false
positive results are possible. The ingestion of nonsteroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs (ibuprofen, fenoprofen, and naproxyn),
tricyclic antidepressants, pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, valproic
acid, the synthetic sweetener cyclamate, some
foreign-manufactured vitamin formulations, poppy seeds, and the
application of TAC topical anesthesia (a combination of
tetracaine, adrenalin, and cocaine, commonly used as an
anesthetic during the sewing of small lacerations) can all cause a
false positive response in the EMIT test.
      If the laboratory where these tests are performed adheres
to what is known in the industry as Good Laboratory Practise
(analytical machinery is kept properly calibrated and the
procedures carried out by qualified technicians), the secondary
GC/MS will frequently differentiate between illegal and over-the-
counter drugs.  However, in some cases, such as pseudoephedrine
and ephedrine (ingredients commonly found in cold medications)
GC/MS analysis will render a chemical signature virtually
identical to methamphetamine unless special reagents are utilized.
      These are some of the concerns that staff members at the
institution where I work have about the new program.  It has not
yet gone into effect, of course, and staff fears may prove to have
been unnecessary.  Meanwhile, we'd welcome comments on the
application of similar policies in museum settings, particularly
those receiving federal grant monies.  I would also like to hear
about experiences of false positive results reported through such
tests and how institutions, laboratories, and medical review
officers dealt with these aberrant data.
 
Brett Charbeneau, Journeyman Printer        P.O. Box 1776-MHW
Williamsburg Imprints Program               Williamsburg, VA 23187
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation            Tel: (804) 229-1000
INTERNET: [log in to unmask]                FAX: (804) 221-8948