Testing Compliance

The Australian Standards for drug testing have changed significantly during the last two decades and require significant compliance, such that many programs do not comply – and organisations with such programs are completely unaware.

An increasing awareness of these compliance requirements and legal scrutiny of Collecting Agencies and Collectors has led to a significant change in the way drug and alcohol testing is being conducted. There are new responsibilities placed upon companies that request third party testing through "collecting agencies", with considerable compliance requirements on those that conduct testing "in house" well beyond simply attending a training course.

This article discusses the most common compliance gaps in the drug testing field, including various issues that should be investigated and common areas of concern that must be addressed. We also explain the accreditation requirements to satisfy the Australian Standards for testing of drugs in Urine or Saliva.

An estimated 90% of Australia's drug and alcohol testing programs are currently not compliant.

So where are the compliance gaps?

To be compliant with the Australian Standards for on-site collection and/or screening - your program requires:

1. NATA accreditation (including for on-site collection and/or screening - not just your laboratory)

2. Validated Screening Kits as required by the relevant Standard

3. AQF compliant Training of Collectors or equivalent

4. Quality Assurance: Quality Assurance specifically to ISO IEC 17025 or ISO 15189 (not ISO 9001); Negative and Positive Control Solutions used as specified in each Standard and Participation in an independent Quality Assurance (Proficiency) Program

5. Technically correct drug and alcohol testing policies (common issues of concern include; incorrect cut-off levels, terminology such as 'impairment', 'under the influence' or 'zero tolerance' and failure to accommodate results arising from medications).

Common Drug Testing Compliance Misconceptions!

? "Training = Compliance" If your staff or your Collecting agency have received VQF compliant training for drug testing but you have not satisfied all of the four additional requirements above; quite simply your program is not compliant. VQF compliant or equivalent training of collectors is only a small piece of the compliance puzzle.

? "Our third-party provider is accredited!" Check at NATA’s website to confirm their accreditation (under “Find Organisation”)

? "Our third party provider holds the correct accreditation for the works they perform!" Many so-called collecting agencies have no NATA accreditation, or have inadequate NATA accreditation and are missing key elements of their accreditation or have only completed training as a collector but failed to go through NATA Accreditation (see our next point).

? "But our Company only screens samples in-house, anything that is not negative is sent to an accredited laboratory!" If you are screening your own Staff, and rely upon a third-party service (laboratory) for confirmation testing, the collection and/or screening components are incorporated into the Australian Standards and your organisation still needs to satisfy these requirements if you are to claim to be compliant. Currently very few companies performing "in-house" testing are NATA accredited and accordingly, few "in-house" testing programs are currently compliant with either the urine or saliva drug testing Australian Standards.

Australian Standards - Potential Compliance Gaps:

"The devil can be in the detail" is a statement that is very true with drug testing. You will find that much of the detail/compliance requirements are contained in the "definitions" of terms. This field can be quite technical and complicated; however we've provided the following summary to assist organisations interested in the compliance of their program:

Collection facilities making a statement of conformance to the Standard need to ensure that they can verify conformance to the Standard. This means that if your policy documentation or any associated reporting of results claims conformance to the relevant Standard (ie AS/NZS 4760 or AS/NZS 4308), then you need to ensure that you can verify conformance. The only body capable of providing such verification is NATA. Without NATA Accreditation, your program can’t claim conformance to the Australian Standards. At first glance, employers might claim that in-house testing is exempt because this provision only applies to the third-party collecting agencies and laboratories. The Standards directly apply to any organisations that utilises its own employees to perform collection/testing. The same verification processes apply as to third party providers.

Employers are responsible for assuring Compliance even when engaging a third-party collecting agency.

But how can you check? You can ask your provider for a copy of their NATA accreditation certificate (including scope) or simply use the search tools on the NATA website https://nata.com.au/find-organisation/. If your provider is not listed at all on the NATA site, they are not accredited or if they are listed and their scope does not match the function that they perform, then obviously this has major ramifications for the compliance of your program.

Technical Issues in Drug and Alcohol Policies

A large number of Company Policies have been drafted by personnel with extensive knowledge in their own specific field but without the required technical and operational expertise in drug and alcohol testing, an understanding of the relevant Australian Standards or various issues that have previously been addressed in an Industrial Relations Commission in Australia. Common issues include:

? Incorrect Cut-Off Levels: some policies state the incorrect cut-off levels:

o urine cut-off levels in an oral fluid policy [or visa versa] or

o superseded/ redundant levels from old versions of a Standard or

o screening cut-off levels instead of the confirmatory cut-off levels.

? Incorrect Terminology - terms such as "zero tolerance" can be incorrectly interpreted - is this a zero limit? (not possible for drugs given that both Australian Standards provide for specific cut-off levels), or does it refer to dismissal following a single instance? (not favoured by Australian FairWork Commissions). Other terms such as "impairment" are subjective and have been specifically excluded in both the Australian Standards for urine and oral fluid testing Referring to a screening result as "positive" also conflicts with provisions in either the Australian Standard for urine or saliva.

? Medications - A policy stating that anyone exceeding the confirmatory cut-off levels of the relevant Standard does not allow for samples that, although "positive" might actually be commensurate with medication(s) that the person might have declared at the time of collection. This aspect should be provided for in the interests of the fair treatment of the Donor. Otherwise, the employer may be forced to apply their policy inconsistently, (for example the treatment of a codeine positive result would be treated differently to a methylamphetamine result). Obviously, this is reasonable; however if you are going to treat the results differently; you should state this precisely in your policy. Medicinal Cannabis and other medications that potentially affect safety in the workplace should be specifically called out in your policy and dealt with appropriately.

For assistance in assessing the compliance of your program, please contact Paul Wigzell on 1300 660 908 in our testing services division. For a discussion around the training of collectors, please contact Nicole Eady on 1300 034 499. To acquire verified and compliant testing devices, please contact Ali Read on 1300 060 274.