Analyzing proficiency criteria of health technology systems: the case of drug testing

The management of certain types of health care technology requires that the integrity of the technological system (which includes the technology and the capability of the users of the technology) be routinely assessed to ensure that the system is providing accurate information. Proficiency testing of these health care technology systems is important, not only to ensure the integrity of screening and diagnostic processes, but also for ethical and liability reasons. In this paper, it is shown that all of the criteria used to evaluate the accuracy of drug testing are erroneous. Three general types of criterion errors are present: ignoring the sources of false results; using an improper unit of analysis; and improper treatment of incommensurable factors. As a result, these proficiency studies of drug testing technology systems are of dubious value for formation of health policy about drug testing, or for informing clinical decision makers about the probabilities that drug tests will correctly classify specimens.

[1]  S J Knight,et al.  Industrial employee drug screening: a blind study of laboratory performance using commercially prepared controls. , 1990, Journal of occupational medicine. : official publication of the Industrial Medical Association.

[2]  D J Boone,et al.  Laboratory evaluation and assistance efforts: mailed, on-site and blind proficiency testing surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control. , 1982, American journal of public health.

[3]  J Park,et al.  Drug testing at the 10th Asian Games and 24th Seoul Olympic Games. , 1990, Journal of analytical toxicology.

[4]  John M. Gleason,et al.  Toward Valid Measures of Public Sector Productivity: Performance Measures in Urban Transit , 1982 .

[5]  Brian L. Smith,et al.  Performance of techniques used to detect drugs of abuse in urine: study based on external quality assessment. , 1991 .

[6]  C. Burtis,et al.  Status of drugs-of-abuse testing in urine under blind conditions: an AACC study. , 1989, Clinical chemistry.

[7]  P. Greenfield,et al.  How Arbitration Works. , 1953 .

[8]  R. Galen,et al.  Beyond Normality: The Predictive Value and E ciency of Medical Diagnoses , 1975 .

[9]  E Gottheil,et al.  Fallibility of urine drug screens in monitoring methadone programs. , 1976, JAMA.

[10]  Mark S. Lifshitz,et al.  Drug testing in the workplace , 1989 .

[11]  John M. Gleason,et al.  Communication---Caveats Concerning Efficiency/Effectiveness Measures of Mass Transit Performance , 1978 .

[12]  R V Blanke,et al.  Assessment of laboratory quality in urine drug testing. A proficiency testing pilot study. , 1988, JAMA.

[13]  Norman L. Weatherby,et al.  The self-reporting of cocaine use. , 1992 .

[14]  S. Caudill,et al.  Crisis in drug testing. Results of CDC blind study. , 1985, JAMA.

[15]  C S Frings,et al.  Status of drugs-of-abuse testing in urine: An AACC study. , 1987, Clinical chemistry.

[16]  John M. Gleason,et al.  The Credibility of Drug Tests: A Multi-Stage Bayesian Analysis , 1994 .

[17]  John M. Gleason,et al.  ACCURACY IN TRANSIT DRUG TESTING: A PROBABILISTIC ANALYSIS (WITH DISCUSSION AND CLOSURE) , 1990 .

[18]  John M. Gleason,et al.  Estimating actual rates of drug use , 1993 .

[19]  Lennart E. Henriksson.  DRUG-TESTING PROGRAMS AND GRIEVANCE RATES , 1994 .

[20]  William J. Staudenmeier,et al.  Alcohol and Other Drugs: Issues in Arbitration , 2000 .

[21]  John M. Gleason,et al.  A Probabilistic Analysis of Multiple-drug Testing Procedures in Sports Doping Control , 1994 .

[22]  John M. Gleason,et al.  Predictive Probabilities In Employee Drug-Testing , 1991 .

[23]  R. Mckean.  EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT THROUGH SYSTEMS ANALYSIS , 1964 .

[24]  Lennart E. Henriksson,et al.  The Unconvincing Case for Drug Testing , 1991 .

[25]  J F Wilson,et al.  A Survey of Drugs of Abuse Testing by Clinical Laboratories in the United Kingdom , 1990, Annals of clinical biochemistry.

[26]  L. Wurzinger,et al.  Methodological Errors in Medical Research , 1991 .

[27]  O Beck,et al.  Deficient performance of drugs of abuse testing in Sweden: an external control study. , 1994, Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation.

[28]  John M. Gleason,et al.  Caveats concerning the use of computer random-number generators to select urban transportation system employees for drug tests , 1993 .

[29]  Helena Chmura Kraemer,et al.  Evaluating Medical Tests: Objective and Quantitative Guidelines , 1992 .

[30]  C. Hitch,et al.  The Economics of Defense in the Nuclear Age. By Charles J. Hitch and Roland N. McKean. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960. Pp. xiii, 422. $9.50.) , 1961 .

[31]  R. de la Torre,et al.  Proficiency testing on drugs of abuse: one year's experience in Spain. , 1989, Clinical chemistry.

[32]  Marvin Hill,et al.  Evidence in arbitration , 1980 .

[33]  LaMotte Lc,et al.  Comparison of laboratory performance with blind and mail-distributed proficiency testing samples. , 1977 .