Post by Katy Burke - State Coordinator on Mar 19, 2020 17:48:30 GMT
Hot off the presses! Just received information from Center for Court Innovations and Paul Carey (guru of drug testing).
Paul Carey - The first step in addressing drug testing during a pandemic is to determine what portions of your treatment court program are going to remain operational, if any. Once that assessment is made, the drug testing questions may answer themselves. Second, it is very important to follow the guidance/restrictions from your state health department, agency directors and your governor to ensure that whatever new practices you put into place are not in violation of state mandates.
The mere fact that this issue is being raised suggests possible concerns about the health and safety of the specimen collectors, rather than the clients - but, it may be for both. A couple of thoughts: First, the chances of contracting COVID-19 from a urine sample are zero or near-zero. Second, I would hope that your collectors are following universal precautions and wearing gloves – at a minimum during the entire collection process.
So, that means that most concerns about on-going drug testing are related to the frequency of interactions between the participant and the collection staff.
Alternative specimens: Oral fluids are out, for obvious reasons. Hair has never been a very good abstinence monitoring specimen. SCRAM is probably a good choice for those clients where alcohol is the drug of choice. So that leaves the sweat patch test. It’s more expensive, but it provides a 24/7 monitor (which supports recovery). Interaction with the client (for application and removal of the patch) would be reduced to every 10 – 14 days. But, courts need to ensure that those "collectors" (who apply and remove the patches) are fully trained to perform that activity.
Many clients need drug testing for accountability, support and to maintain refusal. I think suspending drug testing altogether is not a particularly good option for this vulnerable population. Abstinence monitoring is a key component in the recovery process. I think what we need to do, however, is to think long and hard about HOW we respond therapeutically to a positive drug test - given that many of the support services have been limited or suspended. Traditional sanctioning strategies may not be appropriate in this environment. Exploring alternative responses will be key to deciding when and how to continue to drug testing.
Center for Court Innovations - The Department of Health and Human Services is declining to enforce HIPPA telehealth requirements during the pandemic: www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/03/17/ocr-announces-notification-of-enforcement-discretion-for-telehealth-remote-communications-during-the-covid-19.html.
Paul Carey - The first step in addressing drug testing during a pandemic is to determine what portions of your treatment court program are going to remain operational, if any. Once that assessment is made, the drug testing questions may answer themselves. Second, it is very important to follow the guidance/restrictions from your state health department, agency directors and your governor to ensure that whatever new practices you put into place are not in violation of state mandates.
The mere fact that this issue is being raised suggests possible concerns about the health and safety of the specimen collectors, rather than the clients - but, it may be for both. A couple of thoughts: First, the chances of contracting COVID-19 from a urine sample are zero or near-zero. Second, I would hope that your collectors are following universal precautions and wearing gloves – at a minimum during the entire collection process.
So, that means that most concerns about on-going drug testing are related to the frequency of interactions between the participant and the collection staff.
Alternative specimens: Oral fluids are out, for obvious reasons. Hair has never been a very good abstinence monitoring specimen. SCRAM is probably a good choice for those clients where alcohol is the drug of choice. So that leaves the sweat patch test. It’s more expensive, but it provides a 24/7 monitor (which supports recovery). Interaction with the client (for application and removal of the patch) would be reduced to every 10 – 14 days. But, courts need to ensure that those "collectors" (who apply and remove the patches) are fully trained to perform that activity.
Many clients need drug testing for accountability, support and to maintain refusal. I think suspending drug testing altogether is not a particularly good option for this vulnerable population. Abstinence monitoring is a key component in the recovery process. I think what we need to do, however, is to think long and hard about HOW we respond therapeutically to a positive drug test - given that many of the support services have been limited or suspended. Traditional sanctioning strategies may not be appropriate in this environment. Exploring alternative responses will be key to deciding when and how to continue to drug testing.
Center for Court Innovations - The Department of Health and Human Services is declining to enforce HIPPA telehealth requirements during the pandemic: www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/03/17/ocr-announces-notification-of-enforcement-discretion-for-telehealth-remote-communications-during-the-covid-19.html.