Articles

Employers often face the consequences of a worker abusing alcohol or drugs. Low productivity slows business and, at worst, negative behavior of the employee can cause the loss of business from important clients. Commonly, the alcoholic or drug addicted employee has talents that leave the employer debating whether it is worth paying for alcohol or drug treatment. According to a study recently published by the American Psychiatric Association the answer is probably yes. The conclusion shown below states that employees who are mandated to alcohol and drug treatment experience a more successful recovery than those who admit themselves.

Of course each business will weigh the financial benefits that would result from this investment. Work time lost and money spent are considerations. But hiring a replacement could almost equal that investment, and his or her performance is unknown.

On the other hand, if alcohol dependence or drug addiction is the only cause of bad performance by an employee, then alcohol or drug detox, treatment and recovery is the optimum solution. It is likely that the recovered employee will improve on positive performance areas as well as those that suffered due to substance abuse.

Businesses with employee substance abuse problems should review this study and consider mandating alcohol and drug treatment. Good employees are often hard to find, whether the economy is good or bad. And since the alcoholic and drug addicted employee may only need short-term residential or outpatient treatment, business can improve and a life may be saved.

— Begin external content —

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the role of workplace mandates to chemical dependency treatment in treatment adherence, alcohol and drug abstinence, severity of employment problems, and severity of psychiatric problems.

METHODS: The sample included 448 employed members of a private, nonprofit U.S. managed care health plan who entered chemical dependency treatment with a workplace mandate (N=75) or without one (N=373); 405 of these individuals were followed up at one year (N=70 and N=335, respectively), and 362 participated in a five-year follow up (N=60 and N=302, respectively). Propensity scores predicting receipt of a workplace mandate were calculated. Logistic regression and ordinary least-squares regression were used to predict length of stay in chemical dependency treatment, alcohol and drug abstinence, and psychiatric and employment problem severity at one and five years.

RESULTS: Overall, participants with a workplace mandate had one- and five-year outcomes similar to those without such a mandate. Having a workplace mandate also predicted longer treatment stays and improvement in employment problems. When other factors related to outcomes were controlled for, having a workplace mandate predicted abstinence at one year, with length of stay as a mediating variable.

CONCLUSIONS: Workplace mandates can be an effective mechanism for improving work performance and other outcomes. Study participants who had a workplace mandate were more likely than those who did not have a workplace mandate to be abstinent at follow-up, and they did as well in treatment, both short and long term. Pressure from the workplace likely gets people to treatment earlier and provides incentives for treatment adherence.

— Full Study Source: http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/60/5/646 —

Tarzana Treatment Centers in Los Angeles makes a daily effort to find treatment news articles that we can share with our readers in the alcohol and drug treatment community. The external content was found among other articles of equal informational and educational quality.