Hostname: page-component-65f69f4695-tzd6m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-28T16:06:34.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Clinical Audit : Supporting Post Detox Abstinence: Discussion of Relapse Prevention Medications by Community Addiction Services Prior to Referral for Inpatient Detoxification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2025

Farheen Zahra
Affiliation:
Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom
John Barker
Affiliation:
Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom
Paul Briley
Affiliation:
Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Aims: Without a plan to support ongoing abstinence, detoxification (“detox”) could increase, rather than reduce, risks to a patient. Before referring for inpatient detox from alcohol or opioids, community teams are expected to discuss relapse prevention medications (RPMs) with patients, as part of their wider support plan.

This clinical audit examined whether RPMs were mentioned in referrals by community teams to our inpatient detox unit.

Methods: We examined referrals for patients admitted to The Level Nottingham inpatient detox unit between 1 January and 31 August 2024. Of a total of 215 patients that completed opioid or alcohol detox, a random sample of 50 were selected, stratified according to referring team. Referral forms and running notes were used to assess compliance with the following criteria:

1. Referring teams mention RPMs (whether to be considered or not considered).

2. Referring teams provide blood test investigations.

There was no previous literature or audit to specify a standard, so, given the importance of the issues under consideration, this was set as 100% for each criterion. We also extracted: whether patients were planned to go to residential rehabilitation after detox, and, where relevant, which RPMs were mentioned and time from blood test results to referral and to admission.

Results: 68% of referrals were for alcohol, and 24% for opioid, detoxification (2% were for alcohol and opioid, and 6% for other substances).

40% of referrals for alcohol, and 77% of referrals for opioid, detoxification did not mention RPMs.

29% of referrals for alcohol, and 31% of referrals for opioid, detoxification did not mention RPMs and were not planned to go to residential rehabilitation (considered as some of these settings do not accept patients on RPMs, focusing solely on psychosocial support).

48% of referrals for any detoxification did not have blood test results available. Where blood test results were available, median time from test results was 22 days to referral and 85 days to admission.

Conclusion: During the study period, an estimated one-third of referrals for alcohol or opioid detoxification did not mention RPMs (and were not going to residential rehabilitation post inpatient stay).

Approximately half of admissions did not have blood test results available.

The above is likely to delay the prescription of RPMs, and potentially increase the risk of relapse post-detoxification.

Recommendations to increase performance include discussions with referrers, changes to the referral form, and changes to referral screening.

Information

Type
Audit
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.