Drug testing in residents?

[A-Stark]

Exactly. It is not because I feel I have anything to fear from urine tests, but rather a very justifiable resentment of the presumption of guilt implied by such tests.

[NLengr]

IMO clinical incompetence in residents is more common and more dangerous than substance abuse.

[Jochi1543]

IMO clinical incompetence in residents is more common and more dangerous than substance abuse.

 

Or pathological laziness/negligence. Someone in another program was outright bragging about how s/he turns off his pager when she/he is on call. I debated for quite a while about whether I should be reporting this to this person's program director, because the implications for patient care are enormous. I do NOT want this person to have anything to do with looking after my patients, let alone a friend or a family member.

[Lactic Folly]

Someone in another program was outright bragging about how s/he turns off his pager when she/he is on call. I debated for quite a while about whether I should be reporting this to this person's program director, because the implications for patient care are enormous.

That's quite the thing to say. I don't see how someone could get away with it in real life though, as it wouldn't take long for the non-responding resident's backup staff to get paged if they were needed.

[ploughboy]

That's quite the thing to say. I don't see how someone could get away with it in real life though, as it wouldn't take long for the non-responding resident's backup staff to get paged if they were needed.

 

Agreed. Telling a senior or staff "'I'm sorry to bother you, but your junior is not returning his/her pages" generally means (to quote Russell Peters) "Somebody gonna get a hurt real bad."

[shady]

Agreed. Telling a senior or staff "'I'm sorry to bother you, but your junior is not returning his/her pages" generally means (to quote Russell Peters) "Somebody gonna get a hurt real bad."

 

Haha this makes me wanna re-watch some Russel Peters gigs when I should be studying for tomorrow's non-test

[GrouchoMarx]

Or pathological laziness/negligence. Someone in another program was outright bragging about how s/he turns off his pager when she/he is on call. I debated for quite a while about whether I should be reporting this to this person's program director, because the implications for patient care are enormous. I do NOT want this person to have anything to do with looking after my patients, let alone a friend or a family member.

 

http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/721540-what-is-this-i-dont-even

[burrb]

Or pathological laziness/negligence. Someone in another program was outright bragging about how s/he turns off his pager when she/he is on call. I debated for quite a while about whether I should be reporting this to this person's program director, because the implications for patient care are enormous. I do NOT want this person to have anything to do with looking after my patients, let alone a friend or a family member.

This guy is definitely a troll. There's no way you turn your pager off and no one notices.

[rmorelan]

This guy is definitely a troll. There's no way you turn your pager off and no one notices.

 

Had a pager stop working on me once - there is a pathway they use that ultimately goes to the staff. That was an "interesting" conversation after.

 

Plus they will page you overhead eventually as well.

[Hockeynut]

Drug testing employees in Canada can only be done with the expressed consent of the individual. Beyond that it's currently not grounds to terminate employment, again within Canada. (This is currently still being challenged) Employers still utilize misconceptions of the general populous who's legal knowledge stems from tv or US case law which is different than Canadian ;laws.

[NLengr]

Drug testing employees in Canada can only be done with the expressed consent of the individual. Beyond that it's currently not grounds to terminate employment, again within Canada. (This is currently still being challenged) Employers still utilize misconceptions of the general populous who's legal knowledge stems from tv or US case law which is different than Canadian ;laws.

 

It's even more complex with residents because frequently they are employed by the university, not the hospital.

[Vidhya]

Have they been able to improve drug testing to even differentiate opioids yet? Since all opioids metabolize the same way I thought this was still a significant issue since there are both legal and illegal opioids. I remember a while back when poppy seed muffins were giving positives on opioid tests and resulting in lost jobs, months of stress and lawsuits in the US. I would hate to have my life turned upside down due to an addiction to poppy seed muffins....

[Renoir]

Drug testing employees in Canada can only be done with the expressed consent of the individual. Beyond that it's currently not grounds to terminate employment, again within Canada. (This is currently still being challenged) Employers still utilize misconceptions of the general populous who's legal knowledge stems from tv or US case law which is different than Canadian ;laws.

 

While this may be true for most employment, it is not true of contract work.

 

I work in an industry (usually in Alberta) that is primarily contract-based. I have mandatory pre-work urine tests and breath tests by medical labs up to 5 times per year (start of each contract), and am subject to on-site random testing which can be difficult for someone with a shy bladder. If there is an accident or 'incident', all workers associated with the incident are immediately sent for urine sample/breathalyzer on-site. They will be terminated immediately for etoh or drug content.

 

The state of this industry only took a few years of agreement between employers to make it de facto such that very few people are employable without complying. I wonder if, in the absence of law changes, some 'creative' solution like this could be imposed on medical industries?

[shady]

While this may be true for most employment, it is not true of contract work.

 

I work in an industry (usually in Alberta) that is primarily contract-based. I have mandatory pre-work urine tests and breath tests by medical labs up to 5 times per year (start of each contract), and am subject to on-site random testing which can be difficult for someone with a shy bladder. If there is an accident or 'incident', all workers associated with the incident are immediately sent for urine sample/breathalyzer on-site. They will be terminated immediately for etoh or drug content.

 

The state of this industry only took a few years of agreement between employers to make it de facto such that very few people are employable without complying. I wonder if, in the absence of law changes, some 'creative' solution like this could be imposed on medical industries?

 

This normalization of drug testing by employers is a big problem. It is akin to constant surveillance. It used to be that you were not subject to constant searching and monitoring without a probable cause. It used to be that you had actual privacy. Now your phone line, e-mail and internet habits are all tapped routinely and seamlessly.

 

Imagine if we had the technology to test for people who used alcohol in the past ~3 months back in the 1920's, and employers regularly tested their employees. How many would have lost their jobs for drinking alcohol during the prohibition? And how would have the prohibition been overturned if most who consumed alcohol ended up as unemployed outcasts if not simply prisoners... How is the drug prohibition any different?

 

More importantly, what gives an employer the right to infringe on employee privacy and test for something they do on their own free time, that will have no effect whatsoever during work hours?

[Renoir]

...

[BTJJ]

More importantly, what gives an employer the right to infringe on employee privacy and test for something they do on their own free time, that will have no effect whatsoever during work hours?

 

What gives the employer the right? The contract. If the contract includes a drug testing clause, and you agreed to it and signed your name to the contract, you gave the employer that right. If it's not provided for in the contract, the employer doesn't have that right (unless the employer can demonstrate a serious safety issue). Note of course that employment law is provincial jurisdiction (unless you're a federal employee or an employee of a federally regulated business like a bank or an airline) and that employment laws vary from province to province.