(175) Provider Perspectives and Understanding of Urine Drug Screening

Background & Introduction: Urine drug screens (UDS) are a controversial (and inherently limited) tool in the care of patients with substance use disorders. There is relatively little literature investigating both provider knowledge of, and perspectives on, UDS. As opioid overdose deaths have risen dramatically over the past 15 years (driven in large part by synthetic opioids), the utility—and limitations—of traditional urine drug screening remain under-discussed and comparatively understudied.

This 25-question survey aimed to explore (1) provider understanding of urine drug testing via 10 simple true/false questions related to traditional UDS (aligned with the NIDA-5), and (2) broader provider perspectives via 11 qualitative/attitudinal questions focused on the perceived importance of UDS as well as potential harms and downstream consequences of drug screening.

To our knowledge, only five prior published surveys have queried physician understanding of urine drug screening, with the largest stemming from a national survey of pediatricians in 2006, well before the current era of illicit synthetic opioids. Four surveys focused on a single specialty (psychiatry, family medicine, internal medicine, or pediatrics), and only one included multiple specialties. Notably, none included residents, attendings, and advanced practice providers together, nor did they include qualitative data on provider perspectives regarding UDS.

Methods: The survey was created by two attending physicians (internal medicine, board-certified in addiction medicine and emergency medicine, board-certified in medical toxicology). We conducted an anonymous, cross-sectional survey distributed by email to hospital-based clinicians at six hospitals in the Chicagoland area, including both community and academic sites. Survey data were collected and stored in REDCap.

The instrument included clinician/practice characteristics; a 10-item true/false knowledge section assessing understanding of drugs detected on a “standard” urine drug screen; and additional items assessing provider perspectives on the clinical utility, potential harms, and downstream consequences of urine drug testing (including select multiple-choice, Likert-type, and free-text responses).

Analyses were primarily descriptive. Categorical variables were summarized as counts/percentages. For knowledge items, we calculated item-level accuracy. For Likert-type items, responses were summarized by distribution and, when appropriate, collapsed (e.g., agree vs disagree; always/often vs sometimes/rarely/never) for comparisons. Group comparisons (resident vs attending vs APP; emergency medicine vs internal medicine; community vs academic setting) used χ² tests. Two-sided p< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Incomplete surveys were handled using item-level denominators (available-case analysis), without imputation.

Results: The survey was distributed by email to 670 clinicians across six Chicagoland hospitals; 223 consented responses were received (response rate = 33.3%). Respondents were emergency medicine (EM) (117/223, 52%) and internal medicine (IM) (102/223, 46%) clinicians, and included attendings (139/223, 62%), residents (65/223, 29%), and advanced practice providers (APPs) (15/223, 7%). A total of 172/223 (77%) completed the survey through questions 21–25.

On the knowledge section (true/false items assessing what a “standard” UDS does/does not detect), respondents performed well on several core substances (e.g., amphetamine, cocaine, heroin all >90% correct). In contrast, knowledge gaps were most notable for methadone (41% correct) and fentanyl (44% correct) detection on standard UDS. On a separate knowledge item about the evolving overdose landscape, 143/172 (83%) correctly identified fentanyl as the leading contributor to overdose deaths (IM 89% vs EM 78%, p=0.09; residents 94% vs attendings 79%, p=0.07).

For the qualitative/perspective items (Q21–25), 85/172 (49%) agreed/strongly agreed that urine toxicology testing is more harmful than helpful in routine clinical care. This view was more common among EM vs IM clinicians (63% vs 33%, χ² p< 0.001) and among residents vs attendings (71% vs 43%, χ² p=0.002). Only 48/172 (28%) reported that urine toxicology testing “always/often” provides clinically useful information, driven by a marked specialty difference (IM 52% vs EM 9%, p< 0.001). When asked about the potential consequences of not having fentanyl testing, 46/132 (35%) agreed/strongly agreed that lack of fentanyl testing could lead to missed overdose/OUD recognition (excluding “not applicable” responses); this concern was more common in IM vs EM (55% vs 22%, p< 0.001).

The most frequently endorsed concerns about urine toxicology testing (Q24) were providers focusing on drug use instead of other diagnoses (135/172, 79%), patient stigma (122/172, 71%), and false positive/negative results (115/172, 67%). Residents were more likely than attendings/APPs to endorse stigma-related concerns (p=0.003). When asked about perceived barriers to fentanyl testing availability at their home hospital (Q25), cost was the most commonly selected barrier (51/89, 57%, excluding “not applicable” responses).

Conclusion & Discussion: This cross-sectional survey demonstrated a clinically important misunderstanding among providers of standard UDS: fewer than half correctly recognized that fentanyl, a synthetic opioid, is not detected on routine UDS (44% correct). Most respondents who answered the overdose-landscape question (143/172, 83%) identified fentanyl as the leading contributor to overdose deaths (IM 89% vs EM 78%, p=0.09), with residents trending toward higher accuracy than attendings (94% vs 79%, p=0.07).

Perspectives on UDS diverged sharply by specialty. Nearly half of respondents (85/172, 49%) felt UDS are in aggregate more harmful than helpful, driven by EM clinicians (63% vs 33% in IM, p< 0.001). Conversely, IM clinicians more commonly reported that UDS “always/often” provide useful clinical information (52% vs 9% in EM, p< 0.001). The most frequently cited concerns were diagnostic anchoring (78.5%), stigma (70.9%), and false results (66.9%). Cost was the most common barrier to provider access to fentanyl testing (57%), followed by lack of equipment and lack of local champions (each 17%). These findings support the need for ongoing education on UDS limitations in conjunction with more universal testing for synthetic opioids, while underscoring meaningful EM–IM differences in perceived harms versus benefits.

References: 1.Levy, Sharon, Harris SK, Sherritt L. Drug Testing of Adolescents in Ambulatory Medicine: Physician Practices and Knowledge | Adolescent Medicine | JAMA Pediatrics | JAMA Network. Accessed January 22, 2026. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/204517
2.Gary M. Reisfield MD, Fern J. Webb P, Roger L. Bertholf P, Paul A. Sloan MD, George R. Wilson MD. Family physicians’ proficiency in urine drug test interpretation. Journal of Opioid Management. 2007;3(6):333-337. doi:10.5055/jom.2007.0022
3.Suzuki J, Garayalde S, Dodoo M, Rodriguez C. Psychiatry residents’ and fellows’ confidence and knowledge in interpreting urine drug testing results related to opioids. Subst Abus. 2018;39(4):518-521. doi:10.1080/08897077.2018.1469105
4.Bekka E, Christen SE, Hermann L, Exadaktylos AK, Haschke M, Liakoni E. Residents’ Knowledge regarding Recreational Drug Screening Immunoassays at a Swiss Hospital Group. Int J Anal Chem. 2024;2024:4400606. doi:10.1155/2024/4400606
5.Starrels JL, Fox AD, Kunins HV, Cunningham CO. They Don’t Know What They Don’t Know: Internal Medicine Residents’ Knowledge and Confidence in Urine Drug Test Interpretation for Patients with Chronic Pain. J GEN INTERN MED. 2012;27(11):1521-1527. doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2165-7