North America laboratory survey data for drug testing in drug-impaired driving and traffic fatality investigations

In 2004, the National Safety Council's Alcohol, Drugs, and Impairment Division set out to provide guidance for the standardization of laboratory testing practices in driving under the influence of drugs and fatal motor vehicle crash investigations after identifying a lack of consistency in testing practices in this type of casework. A survey about laboratory testing practices, scopes of testing, and cutoffs was created using SurveyMonkey®, an online survey instrument, and sent to laboratories throughout the USA and Canada. Based on the analysis of survey results and discussion, the first set of recommendations was published in 2007 with recommended scope and cutoffs for drug screening and confirmation in blood and urine. Subsequent surveys were sent to laboratories in 2012, 2016, and 2020, followed by updates to the recommendations published in 2013, 2017, and 2021. This publication highlights the 2024 survey results in addition to trends in drug testing practices and drug use positivity. With each survey year, data exhibited a shift of laboratories using newer and more sensitive technology such as liquid chromatography-high-resolution mass spectrometry for screening and confirmation. Overall, data show that laboratories are willing to implement changes to be in compliance with the recommendations; however, challenges with instrument capacity and technology, lack of staffing, training, laboratory space constraints, and time associated with method development and validation hinder compliance with all of the recommendations. While compliance increased, 51% of laboratories reported using the practice of stop-limit testing, an administrative decision to stop testing if a blood alcohol concentration result is at or above a certain concentration, which further hinders the understanding of the drug-impaired driving problem. Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol and/or metabolites remained the most prevalent drug reported by laboratories, followed by stimulants.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Analytical Toxicology
Published
2025-04-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/jat/bkaf029
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.31
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

North America laboratory survey data for drug testing in drug-impaired driving and traffic fatality investigations

Marilyn A. Huestis, Amanda L D’Orazio, Jennifer F. Limoges, Sarah Kerrigan et al.
1 citations
Journal of Analytical Toxicology
Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
1.31
article

North America laboratory survey data for drug testing in drug-impaired driving and traffic fatality investigations

Marilyn A. Huestis, Amanda L D’Orazio, Jennifer F. Limoges, Sarah Kerrigan, Ayako Chan‐Hosokawa, Amy Miles, Curt Harper, Karen S. Scott, Amanda L A Mohr, Colleen E Scarneo, Barry Kerr Logan
article en
1 citations

Abstract

In 2004, the National Safety Council's Alcohol, Drugs, and Impairment Division set out to provide guidance for the standardization of laboratory testing practices in driving under the influence of drugs and fatal motor vehicle crash investigations after identifying a lack of consistency in testing practices in this type of casework. A survey about laboratory testing practices, scopes of testing, and cutoffs was created using SurveyMonkey®, an online survey instrument, and sent to laboratories throughout the USA and Canada. Based on the analysis of survey results and discussion, the first set of recommendations was published in 2007 with recommended scope and cutoffs for drug screening and confirmation in blood and urine. Subsequent surveys were sent to laboratories in 2012, 2016, and 2020, followed by updates to the recommendations published in 2013, 2017, and 2021. This publication highlights the 2024 survey results in addition to trends in drug testing practices and drug use positivity. With each survey year, data exhibited a shift of laboratories using newer and more sensitive technology such as liquid chromatography-high-resolution mass spectrometry for screening and confirmation. Overall, data show that laboratories are willing to implement changes to be in compliance with the recommendations; however, challenges with instrument capacity and technology, lack of staffing, training, laboratory space constraints, and time associated with method development and validation hinder compliance with all of the recommendations. While compliance increased, 51% of laboratories reported using the practice of stop-limit testing, an administrative decision to stop testing if a blood alcohol concentration result is at or above a certain concentration, which further hinders the understanding of the drug-impaired driving problem. Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol and/or metabolites remained the most prevalent drug reported by laboratories, followed by stimulants.

Journal of Analytical ToxicologyVol. 49(7)
New York City Police Department (US), Thomas Jefferson University (US), Sam Houston State University (US), Society of Toxicology (US), University of Alabama at Birmingham (US), Argus International (United States) (US), Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences (US), Fredric Rieders Family Foundation (US), Wisconsin Division of Public Health (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 24%
Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
1.31
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.