Skip to main content

You Suspect That Your Coworker Is Impaired -- What Should You Do?


Question

What should I do if I suspect that a coworker is impaired in the workplace? Are there various means to address it without being the bad guy?
Response from Michael G. O'Neil, PharmD
Professor, Department of Pharmacy Practice, Consultant, Drug Diversion and Substance Abuse, South College School of Pharmacy, Knoxville, Tennessee
Impairment may be defined as an inability to complete job-related activities and consistently communicate or think rationally without error while performing professional duties. Traditionally, impairment in the healthcare work environment has been characterized by individuals with drug or alcohol addiction, abuse of illicit substances, or misuse of prescription drugs.
It has been estimated that 10%-15% of all healthcare professionals may abuse drugs or alcohol in their lifetime.[1]Kessler and colleagues[2] reported that about 30% of individuals between 15 and 54 years of age reported having at least 1 psychiatric disorder, including major depression and anxiety disorders, within a 12-month period.
Psychiatric illnesses other than addiction often contribute to impairment of health professionals. Table 1 lists common conditions that may contribute to psychiatric impairment.
Table 1. Common Causes of Psychiatric Impairment in the Workplace
Drug and alcohol addiction
Depression
Bipolar hypomania
Anxiety disorders (eg, obsessive-compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder
Posttraumatic stress disorder
Medication side effects
Chronic sleep deprivation

Characteristics of substance abuse, mood disorders, and other medical conditions are often the same or overlap, making assessments difficult. Common signs of impairment are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Common Signs of Impairment
The smell of alcohol or marijuana on breath
Falling asleep while working
Slurred speech
Persistent tardiness
Frequently leaving the work environment
Increasing absenteeism
Changes in personal hygiene (eg, not showering, unlaundered clothing)
Significant and persistent changes in moods
Persistent errors
Increasing conflict with other employees or patients
Belligerence to supportive inquiries
Involvement in discrepancies of controlled substances in the workplace

Frequently, impaired individuals have more than 1 cause of impairment. Rarely do impaired healthcare professionals demonstrate only 1 sign of impairment, and usually a combination of behaviors is necessary to determine whether an intervention at some level is necessary. Levels of intervention are listed in Table 3.
Table 3. Levels of Intervention
Level 1: One-on-one collegial approach
Level 2: Report to clinician in charge, security, and management
Level 3: Report to applicable Board (eg, Pharmacy, Nursing, Medicine) and law enforcement

The healthcare professional's role in addressing an impaired coworker is critical to the safety of patients and the impaired individual, and it is part of his or her professional responsibility.

Case 1

JA is a nurse working in an inpatient cardiology unit. A medical assistant thought she smelled alcohol on his breath a few times but was unsure. JA has been making 2-3 errors per week over the past few months. He frequently leaves the clinic to retrieve "things he needs" from the car. What action should these behaviors warrant?
Any single event in this case does not indicate impairment (ie, the questionable smell of alcohol, increased errors, and frequent trips to the car). Collectively, these signs are probably indicative of a significant issue.
In most cases of drug or alcohol addiction, initial denial of a problem is predictable. Errors are frequently blamed on others, or excuses are made to cover up the problem. Usually, management tracks errors, and this frequently leads to further inquiries or increased observance by management. If management has addressed the issue, then continued vigilance by coworkers is warranted.
If the situation has not been addressed by management, a level 1 intervention is necessary. Simple, sincere inquiries, such as, "I've noticed you seem a little distracted in the past few months. Are you doing okay?" may lead to further positive discussions that reveal a situation that can now be directed to a counselor or physician. Belligerence and anger resulting from the supportive inquiry may become another flag that requires a level 2 intervention. Continued errors with persistent denial of any problems despite supportive suggestions would put patients at risk, and JA should be reported to management or the professional board (level 3 intervention).
In many states, health professional assistance programs are available. These programs often provide information or support that may direct the next necessary steps. These organizations should be utilized whenever possible.

Case 2

A nurse reports that he has noticed slurred speech from physician CB while she was on the phone and when she counseled a patient. This speech pattern is atypical for this physician. Her error rate is minimal, but over the past month she has appeared extremely fatigued and has been increasingly late for work. What level of intervention is necessary for CB?
A level 1 intervention is necessary. When CB was approached this way, she quickly revealed that she was "not okay." She shared that she was recently diagnosed with a seizure disorder and depression and had not adjusted well to the side effects of lamotrigine, which caused her to slur her speech and made waking up in the morning difficult. Encouraged follow-up with her neurologist and psychologist led to medication adjustments and return to normal behaviors.

Case 3

A pharmacist reports to you that KL was seen putting a stock bottle of a schedule II controlled substance in her purse. KL is a recent hire. Her moods are somewhat labile but not distractive to the work environment. The medical history is unknown. What action is warranted for KL?
Before false accusations are made on the basis of hearsay information, it is the pharmacist's responsibility to notify the pharmacist-in-charge and security (level 2 intervention). Federal law requires an inventory of controlled substances and report of any suspected loss of controlled substances (level 3 intervention). Unsubstantiated claims can be quickly resolved with an inventory. Review of security films and dispensing records direct further investigation if necessary. Unfortunately, in this type of scenario, should the coworker actually have an impairment, intervention is likely to occur only after the theft has been substantiated and the coworker has been discharged.

Conclusion

Clinicians have a professional responsibility to protect patients. When a coworker is suspected to be impaired, at a minimum a level 1 intervention should occur. Understanding that other health-related factors may cause or contribute to impairment is key when addressing potential impairment of a coworker. Professional health programs or organizations should be utilized whenever possible.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Antidepressants Linked to Higher Diabetes Risk in Kids

Pediatric patients who use antidepressants may have an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, the authors of a new study report. In a retrospective cohort study of more than 119,000 youths 5 to 20 years of age, the risk for incident type 2 diabetes was nearly twice as high among current users of certain types of antidepressants as among former users, Mehmet Burcu, PhD, and colleagues report in an article  published online October 16 in  JAMA Pediatrics . The risk intensified with increasing duration of use, greater cumulative doses, and higher daily doses of these antidepressants. The findings point to a growing need for closer monitoring of these products, including greater balancing of risks and benefits, in the pediatric population, the authors caution. They undertook the study because, despite growing evidence of an association between antidepressant use and an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in adults, similar research in pediatric patients was scarce. "To our know...
Post a Comment
Read more

Contact Precautions May Have Unintended Consequences

Contact precautions, including gloves, gowns, and isolated rooms, have helped stem the transmission of hospital pathogens but have also had some negative consequences, according to findings from a new study. Healthcare worker (HCWs) visited patients on contact precautions less frequently than other patients and spent less time with those patients when they did visit, report Daniel J. Morgan, MD, from the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, and colleagues. Moreover, patients on contact precautions also received fewer outside visitors. "Less contact with HCWs suggests that other unintended consequences of contact precautions still exist," Dr. Morgan and coauthors write. "The resulting decrease in HCW contact may lead to increased adverse events and a lower quality of patient care due to less consistent patient monitoring and poorer adherence to standard adverse event prevention methods (such...
Post a Comment
Read more

Missing Data Lead FDA Panel to Vote Against Rivaroxaban for ACS May 23, 2012 (Updated May 24, 2012) (Silver Spring, Maryland) — The missing data issues plaguing the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting, the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, or ticlopidine. Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the ATLAS ACS TIMI 46 phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the risk of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, but the studies were hindered by early patient withdrawals and missing data. We Don't Know What We're Missing Based on the ATLAS ACS 2 results, FDA reviewer Dr Karen Hicks recommended approval of rivaroxaban for the requested indications except all-cause mortality. However, another FDA reviewer, Dr Thomas Marciniak, was adamant that the trial results are not interpretable because about 12% of the patients had incomplete follow-up, far higher than the 1% to 1.5% differences in the end-point rates between rivaroxaban and placebo. A total of 1294 subjects discontinued the trial prematurely, and the company was only able to contact 183, of which 177 were confirmed to be alive. Because of the patient dropouts, the company adopted a "modified intention-to-treat analysis," whereby patients were observed for 30 days after randomization or the global end date for the trial, instead of observing all the patients until the end of the trial as the FDA originally suggested. Marciniak criticized the sponsor's efforts to follow the patients and said that three patient deaths not counted in the modified intention-to-treat analysis may just be the "tip of the iceberg." Because the percentage of patients whose ultimate vital status remains unknown is much greater than the reported differences in mortality rates, the claimed mortality benefits are not reliable. The majority of the panel sided with Marciniak. For example, Dr Sanjay Kaul (University of California, Los Angeles) voted "no" because "there was enough uncertainty in the quality and robustness of the data that dissuaded me from voting yes. . . . The 'missingness' of the data doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly makes it hard to infer [the conclusion]." Dr Steven Nissen (Cleveland Clinic, OH) said that the decision to use the modified intention-to-treat analysis had a "profound impact" on the interpretability of the data. "It's saying we don't care what happens after 30 days, [and] that colored the trial in ways we couldn't recover from." Given the risk of major bleeding, "I want to see better evidence that this strategy of adding an Xa inhibitor or a direct thrombin inhibitor or something else to a good antiplatelet agent is robustly better for the patient," Nissen said. He recommends that the companies run a new trial of the 2.5 twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban using a strict intention-to-treat approach, but, he said, "I don't expect the death benefit to be too robust." Several panelists said they were concerned that the patients who dropped out of the trial were disproportionately likely to have a bleeding event, which led them to quit the trial, or a "protopathic" event, as statistician Dr Scott Emerson (University of Washington, Seattle) put it. "We're worried that an impending event is what is changing their behavior. We see that all the time in clinical trials--that regularly measured end points do not pick up [all of] the events," he said. He said that since the company was only able to contact 183 of the over 1200 patients who dropped out, it is possible that the dropouts skew the outcomes comparison of the trial. "Differential event rates after dropout are the number-one thing we're afraid of, so you have to explore it" in a statistical sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of these unknown outcomes. "It would not surprise me if, at the end of the day, these data did not hold up under a proper sensitivity analysis," he said. "What I want to know is, among the people who had events, how differential was the follow-up, but I can tell you by just looking at it, there was a very slightly different amount of follow-up of the people in the treatment arm. But I don't know whether everyone in the treatment arm was cured and they were trekking in the Himalayas and everyone in the placebo arm went home to die. I don't know that that's not the case." Dr Maury Krantz (University of Colorado, Denver) voted in favor of approval but said he does not know how rivaroxaban would perform in general clinical practice, especially when used with aspirin and clopidogrel. "I felt very much torn by this. This isn't a simple paradigm shift. It means going to triple therapy, which is really a three-headed monster in many ways. I think that what you're going to see in practice, if this is not done carefully with the proper labeling and secondary studies, is really dramatic magnification of bleeding and perhaps minimization of the efficacy benefit."

May 23, 2012   (Updated May 24, 2012)  (Silver Spring, Maryland)  —  The missing data issues plaguing the  ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51   trial of the factor Xa inhibitor  rivaroxaban  (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the  FDA  Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting , the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus  clopidogrel , or  ticlopidine . Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the  ATLAS ACS TIMI 46   phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the ri...
Post a Comment
Read more