According to Brett Charbeneau:
>
>       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
>