PUBH621 Epidemiology Assignment - Employee Screening

Running Head: EMPLOYEE SCREENING 1
Employee Screening
Student name:
Institutional affiliation:

EMPLOYEE SCREENING 2
Employee Screening
Q1.
Employee screening is a process that involves investigation on the employee health for
excessive alcohol consumption and drug abuse. Methods commonly used include urine test and
blood test. Screening of employees, especially in an organization which has many employees has
both benefits and disadvantages. There are three main benefits of employee screening. First,
employee screening ensures compliance with the law. It is a requirement in law that employers
comply with an Act on Health and Safety at Work of 1974 which requires that welfare, health
and safety of employees should be highly regarded in the workplace. According to the Act, an
employer can be prosecuted because of allowing employees to work under influence of alcohol
or drugs.
Moreover, the Act requires that employees be responsible for their good health and the
health of those working with them in their workplace. In addition, it is important that the
organization carry out employee screening on a monthly basis so as to ensure that all the three
thousand employees work under health condition acceptable by the law (Saitz & Galanter, 2015).
Furthermore, with the high number of employees, it is essential that the organization carries out
screening because failure to comply with this law may result to high loses in terms of fines and
compensations. Therefore, for this reason I recommend that the CEO implements a monthly
screening program.
However, for this implementation to be effectively enacted, the CEO need to consider
establishing a company policy that supports the Health and safety Act of 1974 and specifically
describe how screening of employees should be conducted. Secondly, screening of employees on

EMPLOYEE SCREENING 3
a monthly basis increases company productivity through ensuring that all the employees are in
good health working conditions and that their potential is maximally utilized. Moreover,
screening result assist managers in allocation of duties to their staffs. Therefore, I recommend
that the CEO should implement employee screening program on a monthly basis so as to ensure
high levels of productivity in the organization. This is possible through establishment of a policy
which states that after screening employees under drug influence or under excessive alcohol
consumption are expelled. Thirdly, implementation of an employee screening program will assist
in risk management within the organization. Researchers have concluded that employees under
substance influence are likely to cause accidents and loses in organizations. Therefore,
establishing a monthly screening program will help in reducing chances of risk occurrence.
On the other hand, employee screening comes with three main disadvantages. First, it may
lead to loss of well skilled and talented employees especially when a policy is put in place
stipulating that employees under substance influence should be expelled. However, according to
my opinion, this disadvantage should not obstruct the CEO from implementing the screening
program because there are many healthy jobless people in the market who can always replace
such employees. Secondly, a monthly screening program comes with a huge accompanied cost
especially now that the organization has about three thousand workers. This gives the implication
that employee screening on a monthly basis is expensive. However, according to my opinion, the
CEO should reduce the frequency of the screening to once in three months (Verstraete, 2014)
Moreover, the cost of screening is much less compared to the expected fines and compensations
that occur due to failure to screen employees. Thirdly, employee screening may expose
employee personal or private information to the public domain which is very dangerous in regard

EMPLOYEE SCREENING 4
to employee privacy. However, according to my opinion, the CEO should ensure that proper
human resource measure is put in place to ensure that employee information is well protected.
Q2.
A company with an accuracy of 95% drug and alcohol test is a very reliable company.
This is because an accuracy of 95% implies that the efficiency of the equipment used is above
95% and the method used is very accurate with an observer having a high experience in results
interpretation. However, it is important for the company to produce evidence of such a high level
of accuracy. Therefore, it is not just enough to hear about a company’s accuracy because
accuracy is combination of environmental, physical and process factors. So, the CEO should
assess the process and methods used by the various companies.
Q3.
a. Explaining a 95% sensitivity, and a 86% specificity to the CEO
In most cases, screening tests are optimized for sensitivity. The sensitivity of a test shows
how well it is capable of detecting a particular condition in a specific population when it is
present. An increase in the sensitivity of an instrument increases the number of false positives it
is capable to detect. Moreover, the test should be able to identify all the components with the
defined condition. For this case, a 95% sensitivity indicates that the equipment is capable to
detect the presence of alcohol or drug trace up to a 95% accuracy. This indicates that the specific
equipment used is very sensitive. On the other hand, specificity of a given test indicates the tests
ability to identify people or staff who do not have the defined condition or disorder. Therefore,
these results indicate that the equipment used is capable of detecting staff who do not abuse drug
or use alcohol excessively up to an accuracy of 89%. It is also worth noting that both specificity

EMPLOYEE SCREENING 5
and sensitivity are important parameters used in the selection of a screening instruments
depending on the defined condition. Moreover, when an equipment of 89% specificity and 95%
sensitivity is used, then positive results will be an indication of persons who are under influence
of drug or consume excessive alcohol while negative results will indicate people who are not
under drug or alcohol influence. Furthermore, the specificity will be used to predict negative
results while sensitivity will be used to predict positive results. (Fletcher, Fletcher, & Fletcher,
2014)
Positive screening results should be addressed.
b.
Test Result Truth
Positive 0.001% (0.03)
Negative 99.999%(2999.97)
Therefore, according to the table, for every screening, rounding off the truth outcome,
there is zero employee in the organization likely to be found in excessive alcohol
consumption or drug abuse.
c. I would not recommend for this test to be carried as a regular monthly screening test. This is
because the prevalence is very low which implies that there are minimal chances of an
employee in this organization to abuse drug or consume alcohol excessively. According to
table of results verse truth for this specific company, there are 3000 staffs and considering
that there is a 0.001% anticipated prevalence of drug and/or alcohol. Then the predicted
positive value = 3000 x 0.001 = 0.03 staffs while the predicted negative value = 3000 x
99.999= 2999.97 staffs. The table below summaries the results. Rounding off the truth
outcome, there is zero employee in the organization likely to be found in excessive alcohol

EMPLOYEE SCREENING 6
consumption or drug abuse. Therefore, this test is not necessary. Moreover, the cost
implication of this test may be high because of the large number of employees involved. I
recommend that the CEO should not implement the use of this method in as a monthly
screening test since it will translate to income investment for less significant result.
References

EMPLOYEE SCREENING 7
Fletcher, R. H., Fletcher, S. W., & Fletcher, G. S. (2014). Clinical epidemiology : the essentials.
Philadelphia : Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Saitz, R., & Galanter, M. (2015). Alcohol/drug screening and brief intervention : advances in
evidence-based practice. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Medical Press.
Verstraete, A. G. (2014). Workplace drug testing. London ; Chicago: Pharmaceutical Press,.