Structured Reporting and Reflex Confirmation Enhance Toxicology Oversight in Perinatal Urine Drug Screening: A Six-Month Institutional Review

Nazmin Bithi; Ridwan Ibrahim; Kesha Rector; Purviben D. Jariwala; Radwa Almamoun; Christina Davidson; Sridevi Devaraj

doi:10.53941/ijctm.2025.1000028

Abstract

Background: Urine drug screening (UDS) plays a critical role in identifying both therapeutic and non-prescribed drug exposures, particularly in obstetric patients and their neonates. While immunoassay-based platforms provide rapid screening capabilities, they are limited by potential cross-reactivity and false positives. In October 2023, our institution implemented a scheduled reporting protocol alongside universal maternal screening using the Drug Abuse Screening Test-10 (DAST-10), a validated questionnaire for assessing substance use risk. This approach ensured all patients were screened consistently at the time of admission, helping to minimize subjectivity and support standardized, equitable care delivery. Methods: We conducted a retrospective post-implementation review covering January to June 2025, evaluating UDS and confirmation patterns among obstetric inpatients. Data collected included the number of total tests, abnormal results, drug classes identified, whether confirmatory testing was conducted, and concordance between screening and confirmation. Provider documentation and maternal DAST-10 screening responses were reviewed to assess the clinical context of testing decisions. Results: A total of 81 UDS tests were completed during the review period. Forty tests (49%) were abnormal, of which 18 were associated with known prescribed medications and did not require confirmatory testing. Confirmatory testing was performed in 22 cases, with 14 (64%) concordant and 8 (36%) discordant with the initial UDS. Discordance was attributed to the timing of sample collection post-medication, potential cross-reactivity, or insufficient documentation to support testing. Conclusion: One year after implementing standardized DAST-10 screening and updated biologic testing guidelines, our data suggest improved appropriateness in confirmatory test utilization. The persistence of discordant results underscores the limitations of point-of-care immunoassays and highlights the need for thoughtful clinical correlation. Unlike earlier audits, this focused post-implementation review shows sustained adherence and emphasizes the need for ongoing education, audit feedback, and EMR optimization to minimize unnecessary testing and bias.

References

1.
Wabuyele, S.L.; Colby, J.M.; McMillin, G.A. Detection of drug-exposed newborns. Ther. Drug Monit. 2018, 40, 166–185.
2.
Forray, A. Substance use during pregnancy. F1000Research 2016, 5, 887.
3.
Costa, B.; Vale, N. Advances in psychotropic treatment for pregnant women: Efficacy, adverse outcomes, and therapeutic monitoring. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 4398.
4.
Tran, E.L.; England, L.J.; Park, Y.; et al. Systematic review: Polysubstance prevalence estimates reported during pregnancy, US, 2009–2020. Matern. Child Health J. 2023, 27, 426–458.
5.
Available online: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf9/K091454.pdf (accessed on 8 August 2025).
6.
Krasowski, M.D.; Pizon, A.F.; Siam, M.G.; et al. Using molecular similarity to highlight the challenges of routine immunoassay-based drug of abuse/toxicology screening in emergency medicine. BMC Emerg. Med. 2009, 9, 5.
7.
Sturgeon, C.M.; Viljoen, A. Analytical error and interference in immunoassay: Minimizing risk. Ann. Clin. Biochem. 2011, 48, 418–432.
8.
Kale, N. Urine drug tests: Ordering and interpretation. Am. Fam. Physician 2019, 99, 33–39.
9.
Algren, D.A.; Christian, M.R. Buyer beware: Pitfalls in toxicology laboratory testing. Mo. Med. 2015, 112, 206.
10.
Ecker, J.; Abuhamad, A.; Hill, W.; et al. Substance use disorders in pregnancy: Clinical, ethical, and research imperatives of the opioid epidemic: A report of a joint workshop of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and American Society of Addiction Medicine. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2019, 221, B5–B28.
11.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee opinion no. 711: Opioid use and opioid use disorder in pregnancy. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017, 130, e81–e94.
12.
Villalobos-Gallegos, L.; Pérez-López, A.; Mendoza-Hassey, R.; et al. Psychometric and diagnostic properties of the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST): Comparing the DAST-20 vs. the DAST-10. Salud Ment. 2015, 38, 89–94.
13.
Argoff, C.E.; Alford, D.P.; Fudin, J.; et al. Rational urine drug monitoring in patients receiving opioids for chronic pain: Consensus recommendations. Pain Med. 2018, 19, 97–117.
14.
Moeller, K.E.; Kissack, J.C.; Atayee, R.S.; et al. Clinical interpretation of urine drug tests: What clinicians need to know about urine drug screens. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2017, 92, 774–796.
15.
Moeller, K.E.; Lee, K.C.; Kissack, J.C. Urine drug screening: Practical guide for clinicians. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2008, 83, 66–76.
16.
Mukherji, P.; Azhar, Y.; Sharma, S. Toxicology Screening. Toxicol. Screen. 2018, 7, 29763076.
17.
Moy, A.J.; Hobensack, M.; Marshall, K.; et al. Understanding the perceived role of electronic health records and workflow fragmentation on clinician documentation burden in emergency departments. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2023, 30, 797–808.
18.
Rhayha, R.; El Ouali Lalami, A.; El Malki, H.; et al. Factors influencing clinician performance post-electronic health record implementation: An empirical analysis in Moroccan hospitals. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2025, 25, 324.
19.
Puzyrenko, A.; Wang, D.; Schneider, R.; et al. Urine drug screening in the era of designer benzodiazepines: Comparison of three immunoassay platforms, LC–QTOF-MS and LC–MS-MS. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2022, 46, 712–718.
20.
Jelínková, R. Fentanyl and Its Derivatives, Pharmacology, Use and Abuse, and Detection Possibilities; Contemporary Topics in Patient Safety-Volume 3; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2024.
21.
López-Arnau, R.; Camarasa, J.; Carbó, M.L.; et al. 3,4-Methylenedioxy methamphetamine, synthetic cathinones and psychedelics: From recreational to novel psychotherapeutic drugs. Front. Psychiatry 2022, 13, 990405.

Scilight Press

Author Information

Abstract

Keywords

References

About Scilight

Journals

Publishing Policies

Contact Us