Drug and alcohol utilization by employees has been a long-standing issue for working environments, as has the subject of how to legally screen for drug and alcohol utilization in the working environment. Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, employers’ commitments in connection to limiting or dispensing with wellbeing and dangers normally reach out to limiting the danger of weakness from drug and alcohol (Agius & Nadulski, 2014). This is particularly so in wellbeing sensitive businesses.

While drug and alcohol testing can be a viable measure to limit or dispense with this specific hazard, the CEO should be aware of the inborn obtrusiveness of any such procedure and the privacy ramifications of work environment screening. These components carry with them a horde of lawful issues that, if not fittingly borne as a top priority, can bring about cases of an unjustified disservice as well as expulsion by influenced employees. The present report focuses on the critical evaluation of the epidemiological problem i.e., Drug and alcohol use in employees as well as its screening programs (Kidd, 2016).

Benefits of workplace drug testing

1. Promotion of a safe working environment

The single greatest favourable position of work environment drug and alcohol testing is the way that advances working environment health and wellbeing. All things considered, it can’t be denied that employees who use or misuse drugs represent a danger in the work environment. This is particularly significant for occupations that include warehouse workers, driving vehicles, or working heavy apparatus for the organization, administration staff and executives. On the off chance that any of the employees play out these errands while hindered by their drugs of decision, the dangers of a work environment mishap are fundamentally expanded. Moreover, other than the business, any working environment mishap can prompt critical misfortunes and even deaths. At the point when that occurs, it will open your organization to an entire exhibit of liabilities and public relations issues (Kidd, 2016).

2. Reduction in capable legal liability

At the point when mishaps occur in the working environment, businesses possibly face legitimate risks. Particularly if the mishap happened because of the business’ inability to keep up a protected workplace. Without drug and alcohol testing at work, it is outlandish for the business to distinguish employees who represent a hazard to other staff individuals in the work environment with their drug and alcohol use or misuse. Along these lines, a work environment drug and alcohol testing system present an employer’s work to protect nature at work for everybody. Drug and alcohol testing in the working environment can help limit mishaps, which thus diminishes the potential legitimate obligation of managers themselves (Maxim, Niebo & Utell, 2014).

3. Helping employees with drug-related issues

While the facts confirm that there are organizations that promptly fire employees who fail the drug or alcohol test, there are numerous representatives who give such employees another opportunity. Organizations that set up drugs and alcohol testing approaches can enormously profit those labourers with drug issues. Numerous businesses help labourers who test emphatically for drugs help them get into recuperation or recovery drugs to their detriment. Along these lines, employees get an opportunity to get spotless and be free from drug and alcohol misuse, while the CEO can, in any case, keep the accomplished specialist subsequent to finishing the program without the issue of enlisting or train another worker for the activity (Marques, Jesus, Olea, Vairinhos & Jacinto, 2014).

Downsides of workplace drug testing

1. Unfair dismissal suits

Working environment drug and alcohol testing are additionally regularly at the focal point of uncalled for dismissal suits. For instance, employees who test positive for illicit substances and are subsequently laid off, frequently record suit, saying they have been unjustly ended. Regardless of whether the offended party loses the case, the organization still stands to lose cash. All things considered, any sorts of claims are exorbitant and remove time and centre from the staff associated with the case. Strong, well-imparted drug approach is basic to avert a ton of these aggravations (Maxwell, 2014).

2. Additional expense

The most evident drawback for managers to run drug and alcohol testing is the expense of such a program. Such type of testing organizations are not modest, all things considered, contingent upon the medication test strategy utilized, a business may spend between 28-40 dollars/individual. There additionally can be a huge time delay between starting positive test outcomes and the affirmation test that should be finished by a guaranteed lab. During this time, your employee can’t work. This is one reason you need to draw in such a testing organization that has a system of labs (Mitchell, Bird, Rizzo, Hussain & Meader, 2014).

3. Violation of privacy

It is likewise critical to think about that there is a general feeling of resistance to working environment drug and alcohol testing, and quite a bit of that restriction spins around the possibility that such testing damages the employee’s entitlement to protection, and they can refer to explicit state laws that assurance that right. At the point when an organization demands a working environment such as testing, it can cause hatred among the employees, which can subsequently diminish profitability and result in lesser income for the organization (Rosso, Montomoli, Morini & Candura, 2017).

Screening Programme

AUDIT is the most read screening tool for distinguishing alcohol and drug-related issues in essential consideration settings and is among the most famous screening instrument in these settings. The AUDIT comprises of 10 inquiries that address the degree of alcohol utilized, its negative results, and proof that others have seen that the respondent has a drinking problem (Maxim, Niebo & Utell, 2014). A World Health Organization research found that, among those taking part in risky drug use, 92 per cent had an AUDIT score of at least eight, and 94 per cent of those with nonhazardous utilization had a score of under eight, recommending that the AUDIT is a substantial instrument with high accuracy (Marques, Jesus, Olea, Vairinhos & Jacinto, 2014).

Test Accuracy:

Before examining the accuracy of drugs and alcohol tests, it is imperative to survey how precision in such tests is estimated. The key ideas are “sensitivity” and “specificity.” The sensitivity of a test is a proportion of its capacity to distinguish people with the tried for the condition. It is the level of people with the condition who register a positive test outcome (Maxwell, 2014):

Subsequently, if 100 people have a condition and the test can recognize 90 of them, the test would be 90 per cent sensitivity (Mitchell, Bird, Rizzo, Hussain & Meader, 2014). The specificity of a test is a proportion of its capacity to recognize people who don’t have a condition. It is the level of people free of the condition who register a negative test outcome. Subsequently, if 100 people are free of a condition and the test can recognize 90 of them, the test would be 90 per cent specificity. The “positive prescient value” of a test alludes to the estimation of a positive test bring about recognizing the nearness of a condition. It is the level of people whose test outcomes are certain who have the condition (Mitchell, Bird, Rizzo, Hussain & Meader, 2014).

Since drug and alcohol, tests distinguish metabolites of drugs instead of the drugs themselves, regularly utilized screening tests (and to a lesser degree corroborative tests also) now and then inaccurately recognize as metabolites of unlawful drugs the metabolites of different substances 72 or typical human chemicals (Rosso, Montomoli, Morini & Candura, 2017).

Workplace Screening test:

The 95 % specificity and 86% sensitivity of a screener with a twofold result are frequently plotted in a solitary chart, known as the ROC curve. The point of plotting the ROC is to discover a blend of 95 % specificity and particularity that streamlines the utilization of a test. Each point on the ROC curve speaks to a 95 % specificity and 86% sensitivity pair (Salomone, Tsanaclis, Agius, Kintz & Baumgartner, 2016). The region under the ROC curve is a proportion of how well a screener can recognize two analytic gatherings, with the region under the curve (AUDIT) mirroring the capacity to recognize cases from noncases utilizing a particular test and a given cutoff. A more noteworthy AUDIT mirrors a superior capacity to make this qualification precisely. The AUDIT, when used to screen for drugs and alcohol misuse/reliance, has an AUDIT somewhere in the range of 0.86 and 0.95 as indicated by a frequently cited meta-analysis (Salomone, Tsanaclis, Agius, Kintz & Baumgartner, 2016).

Utilizing the dichotomous variable for in danger status, the ROC curve plotted sensitivity versus 1 – particularity for misuse as opposed to reliance among employees on the full-scale AUDIT. The AUC esteem for the ROC curve was 0.86 (SE = 0.02), which was essentially more noteworthy than the shot estimation of 0.50 (p < 0.001) (Schulte et al., 2014). The 95 per cent CI for the bend was 0.86-0.95. Hence, the AUDIT performed superior to shot, and 0.86 can be translated as the likelihood that an individual who has a positive value has a more noteworthy AUDIT test score than the employee with a negative value (Schulte et al., 2014).

The 95 % specificity and 86% sensitivity information, LR+ and LR− qualities, PPV and NPV qualities, and Youden’s Index esteem were analyzed to help decide the ideal cut-off score. PPV and NPV qualities were determined dependent on the Bayes’ Theorem for deciding PPV and NPV qualities dependent on commonness gauges from the present example. For PPV, the condition is (Smith, 2014):

Figure1: Values of AUDIT for p=0.001% (Smith, 2014)

By and large, AUDIT scores beneath 10 points had sensitivity around 0.86, showing a high likelihood of a positive AUDIT for those with a positive value. For AUDIT scores of 1-9, sensitivity esteems went from 0.99 to 0.864 (Smith, 2014). An AUDIT score of eight was related to the most noteworthy Youden’s Index esteem. At a score of eight, Youden’s Index was equivalent to 0.60. At this equivalent AUDIT score, the expansion in chances favouring LR+ is 3.79 (Smith, 2014). Likewise, a score of eight is related to proportionately high PPV and NPV (both greater than 0.86), proposing a high likelihood that the AUDIT is distinguishing both genuine positives and genuine negatives at this cut score. Hence, it is suggested that a score of eight is best for the recognition of employees utilizing the full AUDIT (Smith, 2014).

Recommendations

The value of screening for AUDIT and its predecessors in an essential consideration. The screening program test for drugs and alcohol use namely, AUDIT, for the most part, perform superior to different strategies (eg, getting some information about the recurrence and amount of liquor use). The job of biomarkers and of cutting edge innovations in screening merits further investigation before these fresher methodologies are regarded as viable. Screening ought to be utilized distinctly in settings where an intervention can be conveyed promptly or soon after the screening is finished. As indicated by autonomous studies, the AUDIT test has a sensitivity of about 99 per cent and a specificity of about 90 per cent. The positive prescient estimation of the test, notwithstanding, changes extraordinarily relying upon the predominance of drug and alcohol use in the tried employees (Trevethan, 2017).

Conclusion

Regardless of whether employees hold negative or positive frames of mind toward a working environment safety intervention can assume an essential job in a definitive achievement or disappointment of that intervention. The present report demonstrates that for drug and alcohol testing to be acknowledged by employees, it ought to be advocated as being important to address a distinguished hazard and the related strategy and systems should be sufficiently dispersed and applied in a procedurally reasonable way. Receiving a comprehensive methodology includes the recognizable proof and usage of extra procedures to help the testing program that depends on the requirements and assets of individual work environments. These could incorporate methodologies with showed viability, for example, brief interventions, wellbeing, and way of life programs, psychosocial abilities preparing and peer referral. The incorporation of instruction and preparing inside the testing project is significant as it not just urgent for the successful dispersal of the testing strategy, however, it has exhibited viability in impacting employees’ drugs and alcohol-related practices. Nonetheless, for instruction and preparing projects to change frames of mind and practices, they have to go past emphasis on how the testing system works to incorporate substance on recognizing and reacting to wellbeing and dangers related to drugs and alcohol use.

References

Agius, R., & Nadulski, T. (2014). Utility of ELISA screening for the monitoring of abstinence from illegal and legal drugs in hair and urine. Drug Testing And Analysis, 6(S1), 101-109. doi: 10.1002/dta.1644

Kidd, J. (2016). The Economics of Workplace Drug Testing. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2852549

Marques, P., Jesus, V., Olea, S., Vairinhos, V., & Jacinto, C. (2014). The effect of alcohol and drug testing at the workplace on individual’s occupational accident risk. Safety Science, 68, 108-120. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2014.03.007

Maxim, L., Niebo, R., & Utell, M. (2014). Screening tests: a review with examples. Inhalation Toxicology, 26(13), 811-828. doi: 10.3109/08958378.2014.955932

Maxwell, J. (2014). Cannabis and alcohol: Is there a relationship for drivers?. Drug And Alcohol Dependence, 140, e137. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.02.390

Mitchell, A., Bird, V., Rizzo, M., Hussain, S., & Meader, N. (2014). Accuracy of one or two simple questions to identify alcohol-use disorder in primary care: a meta-analysis. British Journal Of General Practice, 64(624), e408-e418. doi: 10.3399/bjgp14x680497

Rosso, G., Montomoli, C., Morini, L., & Candura, S. (2017). Seven years of workplace drug testing in Italy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug Testing And Analysis, 9(6), 844-852. doi: 10.1002/dta.2189

Salomone, A., Tsanaclis, L., Agius, R., Kintz, P., & Baumgartner, M. (2016). European guidelines for workplace drug and alcohol testing in hair. Drug Testing And Analysis, 8(10), 996-1004. doi: 10.1002/dta.1999

Schulte, B., Oâ€™Donnell, A., Kastner, S., Schmidt, C., SchÃ¤fer, I., & Reimer, J. (2014). Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention in Workplace Settings and Social Services: A Comparison of Literature. Frontiers In Psychiatry, 5. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00131

Smith, D. (2014). OR03-3 * STRATEGIES OF DRUG PREVENTION IN THE WORKPLACE: AN INTERNATIONAL OVERVIEW OF DRUG TESTING AND EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. Alcohol And Alcoholism, 49(suppl 1), i40-i40. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agu053.13

Trevethan, R. (2017). Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictive Values: Foundations, Pliabilities, and Pitfalls in Research and Practice. Frontiers In Public Health, 5. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00307

Critical Evaluation of Epidemiological Approach

Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you.

Introduction