Posted By Medusa
Afternoon all,
A few years ago I did a pre-employment medical, including a drug/alcohol test which came up as a false positive as I had taken some headache tablets containing codeine. I am now working in an environement where random testing is carried out on a regular basis and where the same thing has happened although not to me. I'm also aware that other random things such as poppy seeds, cough medicines etc can also trigger a false positive. Does anyone know if there is a definitive list of what can trigger false positive results and where I can find it? I'm thinking that at least if the operatives know what can cause such false positives than they will remember to mention it before the test(with the best will in the world it can be difficult to remember whether you had headache tablets 2 days ago) and therefore avoiding unnecessary complications.

Any ideas?

Posted By Calum Clark
Try this website for a bit more advice on false positives

http://www.ultimatedetox...ing-false-positives.htm#

There are 100s of things that can produce false postives in the intial screening test. The second test usually uses a different procedure to determine wether the positive is true or false

I don't think the testers will take anything employees tell them on face falue as those expecting a positive are likey to tell lies. However, letting your staff know that false positives are possible but are cleared up by a secondary test might help allieviate any fears that they will be dsicplined for washing down their poppy seed roll with a glass of soluable solpadine.

Calum

Posted By Medusa
Thanks Calum,
I agree with the more sensible approach. I have already said that just because you're taking cough medicine does not mean you will be branded a crack addict however the lads were just asking me for a list of possible substances which would give a positive result.

Thanks anyway for the link
Orla

Posted By Jonathan Sandler CMIOSH
If working on either LUL or Network Rail you can go to any SHEQ person who will advise accordingly, failing that (no pun intended) you can always ge a list from the testing company.
Regards

Posted By Kieran J Duignan
Don't beat yourself up too much, Medusa.

Far better to inform employees accurately about implications, generally speaking. That way, you've taken action that you could justify on the grounds of respecting those prone to anxiety, in compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act (under which claims for damages can be v. high).

It may seem trivial but anxiety can explode into bizarrely disturbed behaviour. Although I spent quite some qualifying as a counsellor as well as a chartered occupational psychologist, somehow it took me a lot longer to realise that 'employees' could display the same anxiety symptoms at work as 'personal clients' I see in my own office.

It's even trickier in the sense that an anxiety-prone employee is not a counselling client unless he/she chooses to become one, but a OSH professional may be expected to recognise the significance of anxiety-driven behaviour.

The hard lesson I think is for an employer to realise how health and safety legislation can become the first stage of a battle about allegedly unfair discrimination where damages can escalate.

As you might expect, clashes of this kind tend to be settled out of court, as neither claimant nor defendant are often inclined to go through the whole sorry saga in slow motion before an employment tribunal or a county court.

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Off track a little- The sport governing bodies seem to have overcome the problems by creating a strict liability. I am still a bit unsure about things though because my understanding was that the A &B samples were simply fractions of the original single sample. If so how does one get positive and negative results from the A and B testing respectively?

The whole issue of reliability is one which many laboratories do not really want to address. Can any analytical technique involving human involvement in some manner be so exact to claim better than 95% accuracy + or - 5%, I doubt it somehow. When one adds in the interfering substance possibility the window of accuracy must open even wider.

Bob

Posted By John Murgatroyd
1. Telling those to be tested what will give [possible] false results means that those using drugs [either prescribed or illegal] will immediately stock-up on buns with poppy seeds, medicines containing opiates [codein and various meds with low amounts of morphine in etc], not forgetting nutmeg.....which gives false positives for various drugs.

2. You can hardly expect an employee with a medical condition needing constant medication to [willingly] tell his employer, noting it on a "confidential" report is doing just that....nothing is confidential as far as employers are concerned (people who willingly, and frequently, break H&S laws, tax laws and criminal laws are unlikely to pay any attention to data protections laws). I would advise anyone taking a drug or alcohol test NOT to fill in anything giving ANY notification of any medical condition at all, which is what giving people a list of meds you take does......let them use gas chromatography to find out what it is....too expensive ?.............tough. Cheap tests give cheap results.

Posted By John Murgatroyd
Thank you very much for your information. Being in the union-type of work I didn't know that.
However, standard practice for a company medical requires the person being examined to sign the agreement to be examined and contains a "disclosure" statement....so, that's the end of the "medical confidentiality"

I repeat: people who willingly break employment, tax and criminal laws are unlikely to worry about the DPA. That means employers, in case there is any doubt.

Posted By Medusa
Many thanks to all who took the time to reply as I've learnt some stuff about this process which was surprising (nutmeg...?).

Just to reiterate, all I was trying to achieve was to inform my operatives of possible false positive triggers so that they could inform the OCC before the test. As for anyone who is taking prescription meds for whatever reason, I see no problem with that as long as it does not affect them unduly while performing safety critical tasks and is absolutely not something to discriminate against. If anyone approached me with this, or indeed with a drug or alcohol problem, I would treat it with my version of patient confidentiality while dealing with it in an appropriate and sympathetic manner. I just wanted my lads to be better informed about the process so as to avoid any possible anxiety/worry.

Thanks again to you all
Have a nice weekend
Orla

Posted By John Murgatroyd
It's not "self limiting beliefs". It's a recognition that if a system, any system, can be abused it will be.

Nutmeg:
http://www.drugscope.org...C11%5C1%5C1%5Cnutmeg.htm

Drug tests:
http://www.direct.gov.uk...T_ID=10026594&chk=mriwTy

When you are tested make sure that you LIMIT the amount of information that can be given to a third party. Better still, refuse to sign anything allowing transfer of information to anyone other than your GP.