MEET THE Chaperones BY GARY F. PATRONE, ARCPOINT LABS OF PHOENIX
Federal regulations are clear about the steps operators of collection sites must take to protect the security and integrity of urine collections. DOT 49 CFR Part 40, Subpart D, §40.43 requires that access to any water sources, soap, disinfectants, cleaning agents, or other possible adulterants be taped, secured or removed from the testing bathroom to minimize possible sample contamination or adulteration of a urine sample. I say ‘minimize’ because an employee who does not want to give up drug use will find very clever ways to cheat a drug test.
W
ater sources are not limited to the faucet. A donor can access water from a toilet tank if the moveable
tank top is not properly secured. We also add bluing to the tank water as an indicator if toilet water is used as part of the sample provided by the donor. If you haven’t seen a ‘green’ urine sample yet, you will. Te items listed above are the easy part
because, as a collection site operator or employee, you have total control over the facility. What is more difficult to control is the donor’s intentions and determination to avoid providing a true urine sample.
A Test of Wills A collector is engaged in a game of cat and mouse on a daily basis. Donors new to drug testing are likely to ignore temperature parameters and provide a sample that
www.datia.org
is either under- or over-temperature. A donor once provided a collector a sample that temped at a sizzling 142.3o
F. It was so
hot she could not hold it for any length of time before it started burning her fingers. Cheaters always have an excuse, and in this case it was a “very hot day.” Right! In another case, a construction worker
was flagged down at an onsite event for a sample that temped at 111o
F. He
complained to the safety compliance officer stating it was wrong because he saw the temperature on the infrared gun and it was only 108o
F. Many times the
cheater takes the aggressive position that the collector is either wrong, discriminatory or is chasing the donor away because it is closing time. New initiates are fairly easy to spot. Seasoned pros are more challenging.
What can be done to deter a donor from cheating? If a donor wants to cheat, they will, and only the experienced collector will catch it. However, many potential cheaters are new to the game and may be deterred. Take a lesson from department stores and some homeowners in Detroit—Mannequins. Tat’s right, mannequins, dressed as gang members, are used by Detroit homeowners to avoid being targeted for burglary. A car will slow down; see the mannequins, dressed as gangbangers positioned strategically near the front door, and take off. Even aſter they realize they are mannequins, they avoid the house because they feel they are being watched. I’m not suggesting adding a few gangbanger mannequins to your testing bathroom, but the concept is valid. Adding a few life-size
datia focus 9
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60