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 >