Evaluating a public health screening program in a specific organisational context
Weighting: 40%
Students will assume the role of a Workplace Health Advisor working within a large corporate organisation that is considering the introduction of a drug and alcohol screening program for all employees. The advisor has been tasked with producing a report that critically evaluates drug and alcohol screening programs generally, and the likely implications of such a program in this specific workplace.
PUBH621 Epidemiology: Assessment Task 1 Critical evaluation of a screening program Due date: Monday 7th October 2019 11:59pm Weighting: 40% Length: 2,000 ± 200 words Purpose: To critically evaluate an epidemiological approach to a particular problem in public health practice Submit: via PUBH621 LEO Turnitin assignment box Assessment: See marking rubric for assessment criteria You are to assume the role of a Workplace Health Advisor working within a large corporate organisation that is considering the introduction of a drug and alcohol screening program for all employees. The organisation considering implementing Drug and Alcohol screening employs around 3000 staff, with roles including warehouse workers, delivery drivers, administration staff, and executives. All employees are based within 2 buildings located a short walk away and are based in the inner city (easily accessible by public transport). There are car parking facilities available nearby at discounted rates to employees. Increasingly, office workers are working from home/off site on random days throughout the week. The CEO is concerned about Workplace Health and Safety issues with a similar organisation recently paying compensation to an injured worker who tested positive to cannabis use after a forklift incident. (See: Fantastic Furniture v B [2016] TASWRCT 11 (6 April 2016)) The CEO has located a company that offers workplace drug and alcohol screening on site. The company claims that the screening results are 95% accurate. The CEO is considering using this organisation to screen all employees once a month. She approaches you to discuss the benefits and downsides of drug and alcohol screening on all employees in general, and specifically using the test that this company is advertising. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/tas/TASWRCT/2016/11.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/tas/TASWRCT/2016/11.html As the Workplace Health Advisor, you are to write a report that critically evaluates drug and alcohol screening programs generally, and the likely implications of such a program in this specific workplace. Your report is to address the following: 1) What would you advise the CEO about the benefits and downsides to screening all employees in this organisation each month? You should include in your advice the issues with screening programmes in general, as well as the specifics of this screening programme. (Identify at least 3 benefits and 3 downsides and discuss) (15 marks) 2) The CEO is excited by this company’s test accuracy. What would you say to the CEO regarding this companies claim to be 95% accurate? (5 marks) 3) You decide to do some further investigation into drug and alcohol screening tests and find a company whose test has shown to be quite reliable, with a 95% sensitivity, and 86% specificity. a. How would you explain these results to the CEO? (5 marks) b. Based on other workplace screening programs, you anticipate a 0.001% prevalence of drug and/or alcohol in your workplace. Based on these values, calculate the positive and negative predictive values if you were to use this test in your workplace. Provide an interpretation of these values in a language that would be appropriate to report back to the CEO. (Include 2X2 table, 5 marks) c. Would you recommend the use of this test as a monthly screening test in your workplace? Why/Why not? (5 marks) Presentation (5 marks): A well-structured and fully referenced report. Include a title page, table of contents and page numbering. 11 or 12 point font, double line spacing. Total available marks: 40 PUBH621 Epidemiology: Assessment Task 1 PUBH621 Marking rubric: AT1 Screening program evaluation report Marks / 40 Assessment criteria 1. Advice on benefits & downside of screening all employees 12.7 - 15 High-level advice on the use of the screening test. At least 3 benefits & 3 downsides of screening discussed. A considered argument is made, supported by adequate evidence. 11.2 –12.6 Very good advice on the use of the screening test. At least 3 benefits & 3 downsides of screening discussed. An argument is presented and is supported by adequate evidence. 9.7 – 11.1 Good advice on the use of the screening test. At least 2 benefits & 2 downsides of Screening discussed. An argument is presented, supported by adequate evidence. 7.5 – 9.6 Satisfactory advice on the use of the screening test. An argument is presented with some evidence. 0 – 7.4 Submission demonstrates very little (or no) advice; minimal or no evidence. 2. Advice to CEO on companies claim to be 95% accurate 4.3 - 5 Excellent, high level advice and interpretation of the test accuracy statistic 3.8 – 4.2 Very good advice and interpretation of the test accuracy statistic 3.3 – 3.7 Good advice and interpretation of the test accuracy statistic 2.5 – 3.2 Adequate advice and interpretation of the test accuracy statistic 0 – 2.4 Inadequate advice and/or interpretation of the test accuracy statistic 3a. Explain sensitivity & specificity test results 4.3 - 5 Excellent interpretation of sensitivity & specificity test results 3.8 – 4.2 Very good interpretation of sensitivity & specificity test results 3.3 – 3.7 Good interpretation of sensitivity & specificity test results 2.5 – 3.2 Adequate interpretation of sensitivity & specificity test results 0 – 2.4 Inadequate interpretation of sensitivity & specificity test results 3b. Calculate and interpret positive & negative predictive values 4.3 - 5 Correct calculation and excellent interpretation of positive & negative predictive values 3.8 – 4.2 Correct calculation and very good interpretation of positive & negative predictive values 3.3 – 3.7 Mostly correct calculation and good interpretation of positive & negative predictive values 2.5 – 3.2 Adequate calculation and interpretation of positive & negative predictive values 0 – 2.4 Inadequate calculation and interpretation of positive & negative predictive values 3c. Recommendation 4.3 - 5 Recommendation clearly derived from the report, is clearly expressed and well justified. 3.8 – 4.2 Recommendation clearly derived from the report, is well expressed and justified. 3.3 – 3.7 Recommendation derived from the report, is well expressed and justified. 2.5 – 3.2 Recommendation derived from the report is provided. 0 – 2.4 No recommendation, or recommendation not derived from the report and not justified. 4. Presentation 4.3 - 5 High-level quality of writing that is logical, clear and well expressed. No errors with grammar, spelling, punctuation or APA6 formatting. Well referenced. 3.8 – 4.2 Very good quality of writing, mostly clear, logical and well written. Minor errors with grammar, spelling, punctuation or APA6 referencing. Well referenced. 3.3 – 3.7 Good quality of writing. Minor grammar, spelling, punctuation and/or APA6 referencing errors. Credible and relevant references are used. 2.5 – 3.2 Satisfactory quality of writing. Errors in grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation. APA referencing style is applied in most instances. References may be insufficient. 0 – 2.4 Poor standard of writing, grammar, spelling, punctuation and/or APA6 referencing style. Meaning is not clearly conveyed. Inadequate referencing.