Skip to main content
Log in

Relation of the pre-employment drug testing result to employment status

A one-year follow-up

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

All employees hired over a six-month period at a large hospital underwent pre-employment urinary toxicology screening. Results of the screening were kept confidential. After a year of employment, the personnel folders of all employees studied were reviewed. Twenty-two of 180 employees (12%) had tested positive for drug use. Employees in clerical/aide positions were significantly more likely to test positive than were employees in professional positions (17% vs. 6%). Drug-positive employees were also more likely to be young and male. Comparison of job performance variables, job retention, supervisor evaluations, and reasons for termination showed no difference between drug-positive and drug-negative employees. Eleven drug-negative employees were fired during the study; no drug-positive employee was fired. There was a strongly significant difference between clerical and professional employees on each of these variables. This study did not find a relation between drug use and job performance. The widespread use of drug screening prior to employment makes further studies of this issue important.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stille A. Drug testing. Nat Law J 1986;8:29:1,22–4.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rosenstock L, Cullen MR. Routine urine testing for evidence of drug abuse in workers: the scientific, ethical, and legal reasons not to do it. J Gen Intern Med 1987;2:135–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lundberg GD, Mandatory unindicated urine drug screening: still chemical McCarthyism. JAMA 1986;256:3003–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Sutherimer CA, Yarborough R, Hepler BR, Sunshine I. Detection and confirmation of urinary cannabinoids. J Analyt Toxicol 1985;9:156–60.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Jones DW, Adams D, Martel PA, Rousseau RJ. Drug population in one thousand geographically distributed urine specimens. J Analyt Toxicol 1985;9:125–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. SAS user’s guide. Version 5, edition period. SAS Institute, Inc., Carey, NC, 1985.

  7. Raveis VH, Kandel DB. Changes in drug behavior from the middle to late twenties. Initiation, persistence and cessation of use. Am J Public Health 1987;77:607–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Miller JD, ed. National survey on drug abuse: main findings 1982. Rockville, MD, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hoyt DW, Finnigan RE, Nee T, Shults TF, Butler TJ. Drug testing in the workplace—are methods legally defensible. JAMA 1987;258:504–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Lewy R. Pre-employment qualitative urine toxicology screening. J Occup Med 1983;25:8:579–80.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hilker RRH, Asma FE, Daghestani AN, Ross RL. A drug abuse rehabilitation program. J Occup Med 1975;17:351–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Parish, D.C. Relation of the pre-employment drug testing result to employment status. J Gen Intern Med 4, 44–47 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02596490

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02596490

Key words

Navigation