| Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation | Policies prohibiting the use of alcohol and tobacco in the workplace. |
| Description | Regarding this policy, while on call for the district, performing work or on district premises, all employees are prohibited from engaging in certain activities. For instance, it is illegal for employees to participate in unlawful possession, dispensing, use, distribution, and manufacture of controlled or illicit substances. Moreover, it is illegal for employees to engage in the possession, distribution, and abuse of cannabis while in the district grounds regardless of where the use took place (Moore et al., 2018). However, this policy has an exception where the use or possession is by a school administrator or nurse under Ashley's law 105 ILCS 5/22-33. For this policy, a controlled substance is considered to be a substance that has not been legally obtained even though it is legally obtainable. Moreover, it refers to a substance used in a manner different from what it was prescribed, a drug that has been lawfully obtained or a substance that is referenced in state or federal controlled substance acts. |
| How was the success of the program or policy measured? | The policy's achievement was determined by estimating whether there is a decrease in the use of tobacco and alcohol in the workplace. For instance, in Finland, there has been a successful implementation of legislation on smoking (Eden & Sundsmo, 2002). For example, the exposure of employees to tobacco smoke for at least one hour a day had been measured to have decreased from 51% to 12% between 1994 to 1998. Moreover, in the 2003 report, it was published that since the enforcement of the tobacco legislation, tobacco use diminished from 30% to 25% one year later. As a result, there has been a decrease in the concentration of nicotine in the workplace. |
| How many people were reached by the program or policy selected? How much of an impact was realized with the program or policy selected? | Approximately 46 million adults use tobacco and alcohol, and it has also been reported that about 6.2 million adults are dependent on nicotine. This policy reached everyone working in district areas and especially smokers. With the policy against alcohol or tobacco use in the workplace coupled with campaigns, there have been a drop in tobacco consumption and hence smoke-free workplaces. |
| What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation? | Various frameworks can be used in the evaluation of drug-free policy in the workplace. For instance, the CDC has used a six-step framework to analyze the effectiveness of the policies on tobacco and alcohol use in the workplace in terms of public health. These steps also provide a guide for the implementation of a thorough evaluation. For instance, the CDC collects data by engaging stakeholders and by gathering credible evidence. Other steps include describing the drug-free policy, focusing on its assessment, justifying findings, and enhancing the use and lessons learnt from the policy's implementation (Delogu, 2007). However, there are guiding standards for the evaluation, including feasibility, utility suitability, and accuracy of the method being used. |
| What was the specific information on unintended consequences identified? | The policy on the ban on tobacco use has been reported to have negative consequences on women's public image and physical safety. For instance, the policy requires a tobacco-free bar, and smokers have to go out of the bar into the streets to smoke and, hence, be a danger to their physical safety. Besides, smoking in the streets has led to increased exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke in people living near bars, near the streets, and to the general public passing through these areas. However, there have also been non-compliant workplaces that have led to an increased risk of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke in these areas (Moore et al., 2018). This is especially so for those working in these areas since smokers congregate in small groups in areas where smoking is still allowed. Besides, there have been positive unintended consequences such as solidarity and social circulation, which arise when smokers gather outside. |
| What stakeholders were identified in the evaluation of the program or policy? Who would benefit the most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation? Be specific and provide examples. | The stakeholders involved in this policy include smokers and alcohol consumers, healthcare, healthcare workers such as nurses, tobacco retailers, and regulators. Other stakeholders include the tobacco control community, which include non-profit organizations and advocacy such as Campaign tobacco-free kids and legacy and other federal agencies such as the center for disease control and prevention (CDC). The results of this policy would benefit the society at large due to potential lifetime health benefits. For example, putting these restrictions would reduce the chances of non-smokers from getting exposed to second-hand tobacco smoke and, as a result, would lead to reduced health problems resulting from tobacco or alcohol consumption. |
| Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not? | Yes, because the drug-free workplace policy has ensured a reduction in drug-associated problems in the workplace and has even led to an overall reduction of alcohol and tobacco consumption. This is because having these policies in the workplace enables every employee to know that smoking or alcohol use in the workplace is illegal and may warrant penalties. As a result, people ensure that when they are at the workplace, they are not under the influence of any drug and especially those enlisted under the federal drug policy (Ames & Bennett, 2011). Moreover, the policy has encouraged employees with addiction or other drug-related problems to seek professional help openly. |
| Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not? | Yes, a drug-free workplace policy ensures improved safety and health among employees in the workplace. Employees' well-being is essential in ensuring success in an organization since it creates a successful balance. This will ensure that my workplace functions effectively even amid the more delicate modern working environment with office politics, more detailed insurance policies, and high-labor turnovers. Besides, putting up such policies will increase productivity and show the employees that the management cares about them. |
| Identify at least two ways that you, as a nurse advocate, could become involved in evaluating a program or policy after one year of implementation. | I would invest my time in identifying employees at my workplace with drug-related problems and help them get professional help. For instance, I would give them therapeutic care to ensure that they do not suffer a relapse during withdrawal (Williams et al., 2018). Besides, I would offer education to all employees on the health hazards of tobacco or alcohol use to the users and the society at large and, hence, help reduce the use of drugs by employees at my workplace. |
| General Notes/Comments | Drug-free workplace policy reflects the intent of a company or an organization to keep their employees fit and healthy by maintaining a drug-free workplace. This policy applies to all employees while at the workplace or those performing duties on behalf of the company and to all workplaces. Following the rules, procedures, and requirements of the governing state or local laws, the company may drug-test the employees (Cholakis & Bruce, 2005). |
References
Ames, G. M., & Bennett, J. B. (2011). Prevention interventions of alcohol problems in the workplace: a review and guiding framework. Alcohol Research & Health , 34 (2), 175.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Cholakis, P. N., & Bruce, R. (2005). Drug testing. Risk Management , 52 (11), 24-28.
Delogu, N. N. (2007). Essential elements of a drug-free workplace program. Professional Safety , 52 (11), 48.
Eden, T., & Sundsmo, J. (2002). U.S. Patent Application No. 09/865,344 .
Moore, R. S., Annechino, R. M., & Lee, J. P. (2009). Unintended consequences of smoke-free bar policies for low-SES women in three California counties. American journal of preventive medicine , 37 (2), S138-S143.
Williams, S. D., Phillips, J. M., & Koyama, K. (2018). Nurse advocacy: adopting health in all policies approach. Online J Issues Nurs , 23 (3).
