Workplace impairment is a serious and sometimes confusing topic. The causes of impairment are varied, the effects mixed and remediation efforts, until now, have been difficult to implement.
This guide to Workplace Impairment is designed to answer your questions and get your organization on the right track.
Recognizing Impairment in the Workplace
In recent years, and particularly over this past year, workplace impairment testing has achieved unprecedented popularity amongst safety-sensitive workplaces.
With the increased health and safety threat posed by COVID-19; the legalization of cannabis; the inadequacy of drug testing; and growing workplace mental health issues, safety leaders have been forced to accept change and innovation as the only reasonable path forward. This has placed the spotlight on impairment tests which, as fairly new technologies, have been next in line amongst top safety initiatives patiently awaiting universal adoption.
If you want to stay ahead of this trend and help your company adapt and remain competitive in the safety arena, you should start learning more about impairment testing now and increase awareness about it within your workplace.
What is Testing for Impairment in the Workplace?
According to the National Workrights Institute,
“Testing for impairment in the workplace is the practice of determining which workers in safety-sensitive positions put themselves and others at risk by directly measuring workers’ current fitness for duty.”
The keyword there is current.
As discussed in our Leading and Lagging Indicators article, if your safety procedures don’t anticipate safety risk or identify it in real time, they’re not all that effective. By focusing on the right indicators at the right times, your team will possess the data and insights that make incidents and accidents suddenly a lot more predictable than before this technology came along.
Quick recap:
- Lagging indicators: also known as trailing indicators, are measured by incident numbers, workers’ compensation claims, and past regulatory compliance. Measuring lagging indicators alone provides no real evidence of a safety system’s efficacy because it can create the false impression that an absence of incidents necessarily indicates good safety performance.
- Leading indicators: are anticipatory rather than “after-the-fact.” They help answer the questions “How are we doing right now?” and “How are we likely to do in the future?”
Thanks to a slew of new technologies sweeping all workplaces, from offices and warehouses to the depths of mines, cognitive impairment tests have become a lot more accessible, flexible, and affordable. This has generated a greater safety focus on leading indicators; more insightful data; more thorough incident analysis, and generally more proactive safety cultures.
What's the History of Impairment in the Workplace Testing?
Impairment in the workplace testing as a workplace safety measure is not a new concept. It has roots in the late 1980s and early 1990s, soon after the mandate for drug testing was introduced for federal employees.
Increasing Awareness of Impairment in the Workplace
A rise in workplace impairment testing occurred simultaneously with a growing understanding of fatigue’s role in workplace safety lapses and lost productivity, and specifically the negative effects of shiftwork on the quality and quantity of sleep.
Consequently, researchers and entrepreneurs began seeking more effective methods to combat worker fatigue in the workplace. This resulted in a number of computer-based cognitive tests designed to measure impaired performance and cognition. Since fatigue's effect on cognitive processes is similar to that of drugs and alcohol, impairment tests became a top-screen indicator for all forms of cognitive impairment--fatigue due to sleep loss, illness, medication use, dehydration, emotional distress, as well as drugs and alcohol.
Despite these developments in impairment testing, fatigue management via impairment testing remained a scarce component of workplace safety systems. Beyond personal observation, workplace drug screens endured as the most common method of identifying a potentially impaired employee.
Early Obstacles to Testing for Impairment in the Workplace
The lack of response to this helpful new technology occurred primarily because early impairment testing proved to be incompatible with the workplace environment.
The incompatibility was multifaceted, depending on the type of test and the workplace:
- First, each impairment test available required proprietary hardware which was not portable or mobile like today's smartphones and tablets.
- Second, and unsurprisingly, impairment testing was expensive.
- Third, since the tests required expensive proprietary hardware, there were a limited number of testing units which meant it took too long for all workers to complete their tests.
Mental and emotional distress and preoccupation can culminate in a debilitating form of mental fatigue which can be detected via impairment testing. (69% of Your Employees Are Drunk).
Mental Health and Worker Impairment in the Workplace:
- 51% of US workers are mentally “checked out” at work.
- 34% of workers don’t feel safe reporting stress because they think it would be interpreted as a lack of interest or unwillingness to do the activity.
- Workers say that stress and anxiety affect their work #productivity and coworker relations more than any other factor.
- Only 43% of US employees think their employers care about their work-life balance.
The Legalization of Cannabis & Impairment Testing
"As more states legalize cannabis use, companies are finding it increasingly difficult to hire qualified workers who don’t have THC in their system due to cannabis use in the recent past" (Cannabis in the Workplace).
Meanwhile, as cannabis continues to become legalized in more states and countries, its use is becoming more widely accepted by society and culture. This leaves safety-sensitive workplaces wondering how and to what degree they can manage cannabis use in their companies. Many companies are finding that their pre-employment drug tests dissuade too many qualified candidates from even pursuing employment once they are made aware of the company's drug-testing requirements. This leaves a large population of workers who may indulge in casual cannabis use on weekends and thus do not or cannot pursue employment despite not being impaired when actually clocking into work.
More Resources:
Analyzing Fit for Work in the Top 5 Most Common Workplace Accidents
What's the Science Behind Impairment Testing?
How AlertMeter® Fits into a Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Program
What is Occupational Impairment? Here's Why Drug Testing Isn't Enough
What Occupational Impairment Tests are Available Today
Will Employees Buy-in to an Impairment Test Program
69% of Your Employees Are Drunk at Work
Signs of Impairment in the Workplace
Workplace Impairment Policy to Reduce Errors and Increase Productivity at Work
How AlertMeter® Fits into a Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Program
NSC Impairment Detection Technology & Workplace Safety Report
What are the Benefits of Cognitive Impairment Testing?
What Occupational Impairment Tests are Available Today
Impairment in the Workplace - How Does Impairment Testing Compare to Drug Testing?
Is Workplace Impairment Testing Right for Your Company?
References
Basner, Mathias, and Joshua Rubinstein. “Fitness for duty: a 3-minute version of the Psychomotor Vigilance Test predicts fatigue-related declines in luggage-screening performance.” Journal of occupational and environmental medicine vol. 53,10 (2011): 1146-54. doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e31822b8356
Butler B, Tranter D. Behavioral tests to assess performance. In: Macdonald S, Roman P, editors. Research Advances in the Workplace: Volume 11. Drug Testing in the Workplace. New York: Plenum Press; 1994. pp. 231–255. [Google Scholar]
Czeisler MÉ , Lane RI, Petrosky E, et al. Mental Health, Substance Use, and Suicidal Ideation During the COVID-19 Pandemic — United States, June 24–30, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:1049–1057. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6932a1external icon.
Dawson, D., Reid, K. Fatigue, alcohol and performance impairment. Nature 388, 235 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1038/40775
ECA. (2016). Problematic substance abuse in aviation: Testing & peer support programmes. European Cockpit Association AISBL. Retrieved from https://www.eurocockpit.be/sites/default/files/problematic_substance_
use_prevention_in_aviation_eca_position_pp_15_1120_f_1.pdf
Fell, James C, and Robert B Voas. “The effectiveness of a 0.05 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit for driving in the United States.” Addiction (Abingdon, England) vol. 109,6 (2014): 869-74. doi:10.1111/add.12365
Lamond N, Dawson D. "Quantifying the performance impairment associated with fatigue." J Sleep Res. 1999 Dec;8(4):255-62. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2869.1999.00167.x. PMID: 10646165.
Maltby, L. (2010). Impairment testing—Does it work? National Workrights Institute. Retrieved from http://www.workrights.org/nwi_drugTesting_impairmentTesting.html
Seijts, G. H. & O’Farrell, G. (2005). Urine collection jars versus video games: Perceptions of three stakeholder groups
toward drug and impairment testing programs. Journal of Drug Issues 35(4): 885–916. doi:10.1177/002204260503500411
Zhang, Jiawei. "Cognitive functions of the brain: Perception, attention and memory." arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.02863 (2019).
