Can a hospital lab do employee drug screens on its own employess or should it be sent-out?
463286
Because of patient confidentiality...Drug screens along with HIV test or any other test done by employees should be held in the strictist confidence by their employees.
407759
List all your scripts; its a lot easier to explain the absence of something you are permitted to have than the presence of something you are not permitted to have.  Having the list on file will prevent awkward moments in future meetings.  IF you have to pee in a cup, and IF the tox screen even tests for your scripts, and IF the liquid stuff even screens it, and IF your PO even notices it didn't show up, you can always say "I guess I didn't take that medicine that week."  I wouldn't let it happen too often, though.
1129387
By law an employee has the right to view their own personnel file.  However, a company may require you to view the file in the presence of the human resource representative or supervisor.  If you feel uncomfortable with the individual being present you should be able to request another supervisor to be present instead.  You may not take anything away from your file, but you can request a copy of what is in it.  \n\nA company is not allowed to take any type of disciplinary action against you for making this request.
381645
I believe they can test for different drugs It just depends on what they are looking for and why they are testing I guess.
718141
isn't it a shame that there even has to be a drug test...what is the world coming to?i surely wouldn't want anybody working for me to be taking drugs!!!!
380247
I dispense OTC drugs. We have a company doctor that I am under that underwrites myself and another medic. \n\nWe are covered by liability insurance as well.\n\n I work in an well established organization with special education personell so my position was created.
727483
Hi,  I think your question is rhetorical, but here's my attempt at a serious answer:\n\nIn Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association (1989), the US Supreme Court held that public employees may be subjected to drug tests when the intrusion is small, and the government interest is great.\n\nSo, a urine analysis would probably be considered a small intrusion, while a blood test would be a larger intrusion.  \n\nFurther, a train-driver, bus-driver, or policeman would be positions where the government interest is considered great (they all could easily harm a large number of people), while an administrator, or paper-pusher's sobriety would be of lesser public interest.\n\nThe court also found that the employees chose a profession where they knew drug testing was likely, the test was reasonable, and it was performed by a professional in a clinic.\n\nBottom line:  It's a case-by-case analysis, and generally the court will consider the degree of intrusion, the degree of public interest, and the reasonableness of the test.
1002856
They might work for a physician in his office, or a hospital. They would take a medical record, or"chart" after the doc or division is done with it, and put  the papers in a certain order so the info in it can be easily found. They review it, looking for incomplete items like the lack of a physician's signature on a order and notify the physician. They put it in a color and number coded folder, and file it. They tag incomplete parts, and label  the different sections. When someone needs to see the chart, they verify who that person is, accept a fee if there is one attatched for making copies of certain parts of the chart, make the chart available, and refile it when the person is done with it. The clerk might have to deliver the chart to a hospital division if they work for a hospital. Only certain people are allowed access to a chart, so they would be expected to keep quiet about what they see, and cooperate with security measures.
952143
they can if tested for but it is expenseve to do,,,\n most courts and jobs only test for meth;weed,cocane, and pcp and or lsd
162767
No this is not possible. They have not had the professional training in order to be able to diagnose patients and it would be considered a criminal offence to try and do so.
520424
The owner OWNS the business. Is he going to fire himself because he doesn't want himself working for himself anymore. Most pot head owners I've worked for will smoke you up on break. Who would get the results? He'd take the test and they hand him the results. 'You have drugs in your system, sir.' 'Really!? I had no idea. I'm a freakin drug addict. Damn me, damn me to heck.'
230476
In California, the employing agency can request a drug test if they have a reasonable suspicion of drug use.  \n\nOfficers involved in deadly force incidents are generally asked to submit to a drug test.\n\nEmployers can ask employees to submit to a test as a condition of an assignment.  An officer wishing to work in, or continuing to work in, a narcotics task force, might well be asked to submit to a test before the assignment or at any time during the assignment.  An officer who refuses, in the absence of some kind of reasonable suspicion, will likely be denied the assignment or removed from it if already there.\n\nScheduling some kind of testing is most likely an arrangement to decided upon during negotiations with the employer.  Most agencies don't...in fact, I don't think I know of any who do.
1008411
I would say probably not, but if you are asked if you have taken anything recently that might impact the test, be honest about it. You think they wouldn't hire you for taking an over the counter FDA approved drug.
268379
They don't specifically say, but I know the labs test for different drugs all the time.  If there is a new drug, or if a drug increases in popularity, the lab will start screening for it. \nMy recommendation is not to do drugs, and then you won't have to worry about a positive test.\nThey may test for everything, and they may only test for the "biggies" - you never know, and they will never tell.  I have heard of Commanding Officers sending special test requests to the lab.\n\nFrom the link you provided:\nDoD labs are equipped to test for marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, LSD, opiates (including morphine and heroin), barbiturates and PCP. But not all samples are tested for all of these drugs. \nEvery sample gets tested for marijuana, cocaine and amphetamines, including ecstasy. Tests for other drugs are done at random on different schedules for each lab. Some laboratories do test every sample for every drug.
344505
Not if you work in a medical building and some drugs came up missing...otherwise I don't see why not.
379886
Continue to deny any use of drugs, ask for another test, they have to administer it. There are a lot of false positive results with most of the urine tests employers use as a screening tool, because they are using the cheapest tests they can find (in most circumstances). Some medications you take can result in a false positive, be sure to let someone know exactly what medications you are taking.
1166474
it would be traceable in blood work only if they were looking for it specifically. most drug tests are looking for the main illegal drugs, not controlled medication. in any event, no chemical test would pop up saying that darvocett had been found in the blood. if it is a blood test for something like anemia, then that is what the doctors are looking for. they wont run extra tests for no reason. also i dont think that darvocett is in the same class as opium. im not saying it isnt, but i know it is synthetic. things like vicodin are closer to the opium class. i think darvocett and percocett are too far away  chemically to be put in this category.