fbpx
Troubleshooting

Troubleshooting

Prescription Drug Inquires

(Fall 2016) Real Life Incidents: Working Partners® Consortium members receive phone support and consultation about drug-free workplace (DFWP) issues — a benefit we term “troubleshooting.” Here is a brief description of a troubleshoot call and our response/suggestions.

Situation:

A Working Partners® Client Care Specialist (CCS) received a call from a Drug-Free Workplace Program Administrator (“Greg”) who was dealing with a tricky issue involving prescription drug use. Greg had an employee who had been off the job for several weeks due to a non-work-related shoulder injury. When the employee returned to work, Greg had no direct knowledge that she was taking prescription painkillers but common sense told Greg the employee was probably taking some type of medication.

Greg called Working Partners® because this employee came to his office yesterday and said she re-injured her shoulder on the job and needed to leave to seek medical attention. Greg sent her for medical treatment and a post-accident test. Unfortunately, the test came back positive for opiates. Sensitive to the rising prevalence of pain medication abuse, Greg wanted to know if he could ask the employee about the medication she was taking and whether it was related to her initial shoulder injury.

Response:

The CCS and Greg reviewed his DFWP policy and first confirmed that the post-accident test was warranted. (It is always wise, any time an employee tests positive, that the situation be reviewed to confirm the test was administered appropriately.) It was also confirmed that the employee in question had received a copy of the policy at the time of hire and signed all necessary forms.

The real issue at hand, then, was how Greg was going to treat this positive opiate test. Because of how Greg worded his original question (“Can I ask the employee if the opiates in her system were prescribed for her shoulder injury?”), the CCS deduced that Greg needed to be reeducated about the testing process. Had Greg remembered the steps involved in validating a test result, he would have remembered that a Medical Review Officer (MRO) would have contacted the employee — prior to the company receiving the results — to inquire about a medical explanation for the opiate being present. During the discussion, Greg put the pieces together and realized that the result would have come back negative if the employee was taking the medication legally and appropriately.

Because of the presumed positive test result, the CCS and Greg discussed what type of corrective action would be administered. Since the employee was out of her “new hire” period, Greg acknowledged he would send the employee to their Employee Assistance Program (EAP) for an alcohol/drug assessment. Precedence had been set at the company to make such mandatory referrals, so Greg felt comfortable with this as a next step.

In closing, the CCS reminded Greg that he should always involve his corporate council if there is a chance the employee would be let go, e.g., if she refused to comply with the mandatory EAP referral. The CCS also reminded Greg it would be prudent for him to have a paper copy of the test result in hand before taking action with the employee.

Epilogue:

A few minutes after hanging up, Greg called back and explained that after rereading the test result, the employee’s test result was positive “due to non-response to calls.” Upon discussion with the drug testing vendor, Greg reported that the employee had not returned calls to the MRO.  Greg’s new question was whether or not the test could be changed from a positive to a negative IF the employee could show evidence of a valid prescription.

Greg first needed to decide if he was OK with setting new precedence – namely that the company would offer employees “one more opportunity” to contact the MRO in cases such as this. Because the company was tuned into the sensitively of the prescription drug issue, they decided to bring the employee into Greg’s office and put her in front of a phone to call the MRO. That connection happened, the employee was able to provide proof of a prescription and the test was then ruled negative.

The new issue at hand, then, was whether or not the company would alter the employee’s job duties since learning she was taking a narcotic. They consulted their policy and decided to remind the employee about their prescription drug rule, which included having the employee consult with her doctor to discuss the impact the medication might have on her job duties. A decision would then need to be made about whether or not the employee’s job duties would need to be adjusted during the time she was taking the medication.

When making action-decisions, always think comprehensively about the situation you are involved in and are creating by your actions.  Also, consider the what-if scenarios to aid in determining direction.  Most importantly, you could do what the employer with this situation did if you are part of our consortium:

 Call Working Partners®Consortium at (614) 337-8200 or 866-354-3397.

As a member of Working Partners® Consortium, don’t forget your access to this troubleshooting service.  Be safe not sorry!!


DISCLAIMER: This publication is designed to provide accurate information regarding the subject matter covered. It is provided with the understanding that those involved in the publication are not engaged in rendering legal counsel. If legal advice is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.