BioTechScreening Blog: August 2012

BioTechScreening Archive Page

Sunday, August 26, 2012

On-Site Device History and Why They Dominate the Criminal Justice System

Image courtesy of http://www.jeanlambertmep.org.uk

ONSITE DEVICE HISTORY AND WHY THEY DOMINATE THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
BACKDROP: These devices have been around since the mid-nineties and their accuracy and reliability have increased quantum leaps so that today they are as accurate as laboratory screening. Why have immediate results triumphed over delayed result testing?

COST SAVING,
1. The initial savings is substantial with onsite screening generally costing less than half that of a laboratory screen with similar accuracy. The shipping cost of sending a specimen to the lab will always militate against it being a cost effective alternative.
2. Onsite devices yield a high percentage of admissions. When admissions obviate the need for confirmations, dramatic savings are realized in that confirmatory testing will always be the most expensive part of any testing process.

SUPERIOR PROCESS
1. With a delayed result, when the officer hears back from the lab he/she must either track down and confront the individual at which time an admission is highly unlikely
2. Additionally when a couple of days have lapsed before usage is detected, a potentially hazardous situation arises in that drug supporting criminal behavior may continue.
3. With an immediate result is negative, the officer can reward and support the donors sobriety, the positive role of drug testing.
4. When results are delayed, the deterrent effect of drug testing is diminished or non-existent.

LABOR INTENSIVE
With a lab screen a specimen must be collected, sealed, bagged a Chain-of-custody completed, shipped and then reported out when the results are returned. With a onsite device in the majority of cases the process in done in a very few minutes.

OFFICER SAFETY
When I met with the assistant warden at Sheridan in Oregon he listened to my pitch before saying all the features that I was promoting were well and fine, but he was only interested in the safety of his officers and the sooner he could identify an active drug user and segregate him from the population the better for all concerned.

COMMUNITY PROTECTION
With delayed results an offender can continue their drug supporting criminal activities until they are held accountable. Immediate results, therefore, afford a far higher degree of community protection.

DETERRENCE
In order for deterrence to be effective, consequences must be swift and certain. Long term addicts have told us that they must know that they will have to pay the piper at the time of the test or else they’ll convince themselves that the drug will degrade in the delay while sending it to a laboratory or that it will be lost or mixed-up with another’s specimen. Deterrence is the main goal that most effective programs seek to achieve.

FLEXIBILITY AND KEEPING DONORS GUESSING
In order to be effective, a process must keep offenders “guessing.” When panels are not changed they become predictable and donors will find drugs they can use that are “safe” from detection. Onsite tests enable you to frequently change panels so that a donor does not know on a given day for what they will be tested. It also enables you to customize panels per geographic areas to test only for those drugs being used in a given location.

Labels: justice, laboratory, matrix, testing

by: BioTechScreening 0 Comments

<< Blog Home

Laboratory Certifications for Drug Testing

        LABORATORY CERTIFICATIONS
       From Norchem Laboratory

Urinalysis drug-testing conducted under the authority of the Court should require or mandate a high “Forensic Standard” that will insure the accuracy and “Legal Defensibility” of those test results. This “Forensic Standard” is directly aligned with the level of “Certification” of the laboratory conducting the urinalysis testing. The following details the historic development of the three (3) major “Certification Programs” for drug testing laboratories.

SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (NIDA), Final Guidelines, F.R./Vol 53. No. 69/April 11, 1988)
SAMHSA was created in response to demands for scientific and technical standards for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs and for the certification of laboratories engaged in urine drug testing for federal agencies. SAMHSA is distinguished from CLIA by its strict emphasis on “Legal Defensibility” and by its deliberately restricted regulatory scope; it is limited to urine testing for five drug classes. The SAMHSA Guidelines that insure “Legal Defensibility” include: 1) rigorous chain-of-custody for the collection, testing, and storage of the specimens, 2) strict laboratory security with restricted laboratory access and locked specimen storage, 3) precise requirements for quality assurance, 4) performance testing specific to urine assays for five drug classes, 5) specific educational requirements for laboratory personnel to insure their credibility as Forensic Drug Testing Experts. The SAMHSA Guidelines make it clear that they do not apply to drug testing performed under any legal authority other than the Mandatory Federal Workplace Drug Testing

CAP-FUDT - 1988 (College of American Pathologists/Forensic Urine Drug Testing)The gap left between CLIA and SAMHSA made the development of a separate laboratory certification program essential to insure the protection of individual rights and the “Legal Defensibility” of forensic urine drug testing outside the limited context of federal programs. In 1988 CAP, in consultation with the American Association for Clinical Chemistry, developed the FUDT accreditation program designed specifically for non-federal workplace drug testing. It was modeled after the SAMHSA program and includes the five items above to insure “Legal Defensibility” but the scope of the program was expanded to cover any drug test performed on urine. The objective of the CAP-FUDT program is to improve the quality of laboratory services so that all testing is performed in a scientific and “Legally Defensible” manner. The CAP-FUDT program emphasizes the importance of confirmatory tests to meet forensic requirements.

CLIA – 1988 (Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act of 1988)
CLIA was enacted to insure that all laboratories provide accurate results for medical diagnosis and treatment decisions. CLIA has applied a single set of requirements that apply to almost all laboratory testing of human specimens. CLIA also established enforcement procedures and sanctions applicable when laboratories fail to meet standards. Compared to most clinical tests, the legal consequences of a positive urine drug test may be severe and present a heightened probability of a legal challenge. Therefore, drug tests are considered “Forensic Testing”. However, the CLIA laboratory certification program does not provide for chain-of-custody procedures and documentation, quality assurance and performance testing specific to forensic urine drug testing (FUDT) such as confirmation procedures. Additionally, CLIA does not specifically have trained inspectors to perform on-site evaluation of forensic laboratories.

Labels: clia, fda, justice, laboratory, testing, urine, workplace

by: BioTechScreening 0 Comments

<< Blog Home