Skip to textbook content
Doctor’s PassportTextbook
TopicsAll topics

Loading topic navigation…

Textbook navigation
TopicsAll topics

Loading topic navigation…
← Psychiatry indexChapter sections
OverviewAetiologyPathophysiologyClinical features and red flagsInvestigationsDifferential diagnosisManagementComplicationsMonitoring and follow-upSpecial situationsCommon pitfallsQuestionsSources
Full textbook13 sectionsOpen only what you need
Educational draft · awaiting clinical reviewThe full textbook explains uncertainty but does not replace live national or local guidance, specialist advice, or current prescribing information.

Alcohol-use assessment and brief intervention

Psychiatry · UK scope · Sources checked 27 Aug 2026 · Clinical review pending

RapidFull
!
Recognise immediate alcohol-related danger

Severe intoxication with reduced consciousness, injury, hypoglycaemia, suspected poisoning, active suicidality, acute withdrawal, a withdrawal seizure or evolving delirium requires urgent clinical care rather than completion of a screening questionnaire.

Action: Assess airway, breathing, circulation, glucose, temperature, consciousness, injury and co-ingestion; call emergency services or transfer to acute care when indicated. A physically dependent person should not be told to stop abruptly without an assisted-withdrawal assessment because sudden reduction can provoke seizures or delirium tremens.

Overview

Identify alcohol-related risk accurately, distinguish increasing-risk or higher-risk drinking from possible dependence, and deliver proportionate brief intervention, referral and safety planning without relying on laboratory markers or stigma.

Alcohol assessment begins with a respectful account of what is actually consumed. Ask about beverage, container and strength because a home-poured spirit, strong cider or large wine glass may contain several units. Map a usual week, heavier episodes, the maximum in one sitting, morning drinking, periods without alcohol and recent escalation. Explore context, desired effects, blackouts, injury, driving, work, relationships, money, sleep and use of opioids, benzodiazepines, gabapentinoids or other drugs. A non-judgemental explanation of why the questions matter improves disclosure and allows the person to connect alcohol with symptoms they already want to change.

Use a validated tool rather than impression alone. In a time-limited setting, AUDIT-C can identify who needs the full UK AUDIT; a score of 5 or more is a commonly used positive threshold. The full AUDIT is the national reference identification tool, with scores of 0–7, 8–15, 16–19 and 20 or more corresponding respectively to lower risk, increasing-risk use, higher-risk use and possible dependence. These are intervention bands, not diagnoses. A person who has recently cut down, has withdrawal symptoms, liver disease, severe mental illness or repeated unsuccessful attempts may need comprehensive assessment at a lower score.

Practice

Two practice questions

Your practice draft is saved in this browser.

Question 1 of 2
0 correct
PsychiatryOriginal SBA

Positive short alcohol screen

A 48-year-old man attending for hypertension has an AUDIT-C score of 6, no withdrawal symptoms and no immediate medical problem. What is the most appropriate next assessment step?

Choose one answer, then submit
← Rapid synopsisBack to overviewAll Psychiatry topics →
Sources and review status5 sources · checked 27 Aug 2026 · clinical review pending+
Sources

Sources and review status

National guidance is shown before implementation-dependent detail. Apply principles in context and verify current guidance when a decision affects care. Source check completed 27 Aug 2026; clinical approval remains outstanding.

  • DHSC alcohol guideline chapter 3 identification and brief interventionsCurrent UK AUDIT bands, short-screen threshold and intervention matching.
  • DHSC alcohol guideline chapter 4 assessment and treatment planningTriage, comprehensive assessment and risk-led planning.
  • NICE CG115 alcohol dependence recommendationsValidated measures, comprehensive assessment, goals and specialist pathways.
  • NICE PH24 alcohol prevention recommendationsStructured brief advice and extended motivational intervention.
  • DHSC alcohol guideline chapter 5 psychosocial interventionsLow-risk guidance and goal selection.

Editorial contact: Doctor’s Passport editorial team. Source-check date is separate from clinical approval. Report a content problem · Content changes

Authoring stateComplete draftClinical stateAwaiting review

Assess dependence directly. Ask about craving or compulsion, impaired control, tolerance, withdrawal, relief drinking, narrowing of interests and continued use despite harm. Establish previous sudden reductions, seizures, hallucinations or delirium tremens and whether alcohol is needed to function in the morning. NICE recommends structured measures such as SADQ or LDQ to support assessment of dependence and CIWA-Ar to monitor established withdrawal in an appropriate clinical setting. Neither a questionnaire nor a unit count replaces examination and judgement when acute risk is present.

A brief alcohol intervention is a collaborative, structured conversation for people with increasing-risk or higher-risk drinking who are not likely to be dependent. Give personalised feedback, link drinking to the presenting issue, ask what matters to the person, explore ambivalence, offer a menu of practical changes and agree a specific goal. Five to fifteen minutes can be sufficient for structured brief advice. Options include alcohol-free days, smaller or weaker drinks, pacing with non-alcoholic drinks, avoiding high-risk settings and tracking units. An extended motivational intervention, typically twenty to thirty minutes with follow-up, may help when brief advice has not changed drinking.

Match the goal to risk and preference. Lower-risk consumption may be reasonable for some people with harmful use or mild dependence and strong support, but abstinence is generally the appropriate goal for more severe dependence, significant psychiatric or physical comorbidity, pregnancy and advanced liver disease. If the person declines abstinence, continue engagement and harm-reduction work rather than withholding care. Possible dependence should trigger active specialist assessment; the handover is more likely to succeed when the receiving service expects the referral and barriers such as stigma, transport, childcare and fear of withdrawal are addressed.

Key points

  • Ask permission, use neutral language and quantify type, strength, measure, frequency, single-occasion peaks, alcohol-free days and recent change rather than asking only whether someone drinks socially.
  • A positive AUDIT-C screen, conventionally 5 or more, should lead to the full ten-item UK AUDIT; it does not itself diagnose dependence.
  • Full AUDIT scores guide response: 0–7 lower risk, 8–15 increasing risk, 16–19 higher risk and 20 or more possible dependence, always interpreted with clinical judgement.
  • Offer a structured five-to-fifteen-minute brief intervention for increasing-risk or higher-risk drinking when dependence is not suspected; use feedback, motivation, practical goals and follow-up.
  • Do not use liver tests, mean cell volume or breath alcohol as routine screening tests; normal results do not exclude hazardous use or dependence.
  • The UK low-risk message is that it is safest not to regularly exceed 14 units weekly and, if drinking that amount, to spread it over at least three days.
  • Pregnancy or planning pregnancy warrants advice that the safest approach is not to drink; advanced liver disease and several other circumstances may also make abstinence the appropriate goal.
  • Possible dependence, previous complicated withdrawal, significant comorbidity or failure of brief intervention warrants active referral, not a leaflet-only signpost.

Aetiology

01

Reinforcement and learning

Alcohol may rapidly reduce anxiety, social discomfort or withdrawal, reinforcing repeated use even as delayed health and relationship consequences accumulate.

02

Biological vulnerability

Genetic susceptibility, tolerance, neuroadaptation and coexisting mental or physical illness influence whether repeated exposure progresses toward impaired control and dependence.

03

Social environment

Availability, price, marketing, occupational culture, deprivation, trauma, housing and peer norms shape both exposure and access to safer alternatives or treatment.

Pathophysiology

  1. 1
    Acute central effects

    Alcohol enhances inhibitory and reduces excitatory signalling, producing disinhibition before impaired coordination, judgement, consciousness and respiration at increasing exposure.

  2. 2
    Neuroadaptation

    Repeated exposure shifts inhibitory and excitatory balance, creating tolerance and a hyperexcitable state when alcohol concentration falls.

  3. 3
    Reward salience

    Conditioned cues, stress relief and mesolimbic reinforcement can make alcohol-seeking increasingly prominent relative to longer-term goals.

  4. 4
    Multisystem toxicity

    Direct toxicity, acetaldehyde, oxidative stress, nutritional deficiency and behavioural exposure contribute to liver, cardiovascular, neurological, gastrointestinal and cancer risk.

Clinical features and red flags

Increasing-risk pattern

A full AUDIT score of 8–15 suggests rising lifetime risk and should prompt brief intervention, while the consumption history remains essential.

Higher-risk pattern

A score of 16–19 suggests likely alcohol-related harm; assess physical, psychological and social consequences and whether specialist input is needed.

Possible dependence

Compulsion, loss of control, tolerance, withdrawal, relief drinking and prioritisation of alcohol carry more diagnostic weight than consumption alone.

Hidden physical harm

Hypertension, dyspepsia, neuropathy, falls, sleep disturbance, sexual dysfunction, abnormal liver findings and cognitive change may be alcohol related.

Psychosocial signal

Low mood, anxiety, self-harm, family conflict, debt, work difficulty, violence, safeguarding concerns or repeated emergency attendance should prompt direct alcohol enquiry.

Red flags requiring action

  • Confusion, impaired consciousness, slow or irregular breathing, cyanosis, persistent vomiting, hypoglycaemia or significant trauma requires urgent physiological assessment and treatment.
  • Morning tremor, sweating, nausea, anxiety, hallucinations or previous withdrawal seizures suggests physical dependence and makes unsupported abrupt cessation unsafe.
  • A current suicide plan, self-neglect, domestic abuse, dependent children at risk, severe depression or psychosis requires direct risk and safeguarding action alongside alcohol care.

Investigations

  1. 01
    UK AUDIT questionnaireFirst step
    Why
    Identify the current risk band and provide a repeatable baseline for intervention.
    Interpretation and limitations
    Scores guide proportionate response but do not diagnose dependence; clinical risk can justify referral below a numerical threshold.
  2. 02
    Dependence and withdrawal history
    Why
    Determine whether reduction can be attempted safely and whether assisted withdrawal assessment is required.
    Interpretation and limitations
    Morning withdrawal, relief drinking or previous seizures and delirium outweigh a reassuring current appearance.
  3. 03
    Physical and mental state examination
    Why
    Look for intoxication, withdrawal, liver disease, malnutrition, neuropathy, injury, depression, psychosis and cognitive impairment.
    Interpretation and limitations
    An acute abnormality changes priority from brief advice to treatment, safeguarding or urgent referral.
  4. 04
    Targeted blood testing
    Why
    Investigate suspected physical consequences with tests such as blood count, liver profile, renal function, glucose and coagulation as clinically indicated.
    Interpretation and limitations
    Results define complications and fitness for treatment; normal tests neither exclude risky drinking nor establish a safe level.

Differential diagnosis

01

Non-dependent risky use

High consumption or episodic intoxication can cause substantial harm without the impaired control, tolerance and withdrawal pattern of dependence.

02

Primary mental disorder

Depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, psychosis or PTSD may precede alcohol use, result from it, or coexist in a mutually maintaining cycle.

03

Other sedative exposure

Benzodiazepines, gabapentinoids, opioids and sedating medicines may account for impairment, withdrawal symptoms or overdose risk attributed to alcohol alone.

04

Physical disease

Endocrine, hepatic, neurological, sleep and gastrointestinal disorders can mimic consequences of alcohol and still require independent investigation.

Management

01IdentificationScreen then characteriseFirst stepAlcohol use is disclosed, clinically suspected or relevant to a presenting problem.+
  1. 1Use AUDIT-C when time is limited and complete the full UK AUDIT after a positive short screen.
  2. 2Quantify units and pattern, then assess dependence, withdrawal history, comorbidity, current risk and the person's goals.
  3. 3Explain the risk band in ordinary language and agree whether the next step is advice, fuller assessment or urgent care.
02Brief interventionConvert feedback into actionIncreasing-risk or higher-risk drinking is identified without evidence that brief advice would be unsafe or inadequate.+
  1. 1Link alcohol to a health or life consequence the person recognises and ask permission to discuss change.
  2. 2Explore importance and confidence, offer practical options, and agree a specific achievable consumption or abstinence goal.

Complications

01

Acute injury and poisoning

Falls, assault, collision, aspiration, hypoglycaemia and combined sedative overdose can occur during a single high-exposure episode.

02

Withdrawal syndromes

Physical dependence can lead to tremor, autonomic disturbance, hallucinations, seizures and delirium after an abrupt fall in alcohol exposure.

03

Chronic organ injury

Liver disease, pancreatitis, hypertension, cardiomyopathy, neuropathy, cognitive injury and several cancers become more likely with sustained exposure.

04

Psychosocial loss

Depression, suicide, violence, neglect, debt, unemployment, family disruption and safeguarding harm may progress before laboratory abnormalities appear.

Monitoring and follow-up

  • Repeat units, alcohol-free days and a validated outcome measure at agreed intervals rather than relying on a general impression of improvement.
  • Review withdrawal symptoms before each substantial reduction and arrange assisted withdrawal assessment if physical dependence becomes apparent.
  • Track the presenting consequence, such as blood pressure, sleep, mood, falls, liver disease, family safety or work functioning, alongside consumption.
  • Ask directly about self-harm, suicide, violence, exploitation and dependent children whenever circumstances or drinking pattern changes.
  • After referral, confirm that contact occurred and address practical barriers; a missed appointment should prompt re-engagement proportionate to risk.

Special situations

One unit has meaning

One UK unit is 10 ml or 8 g of pure alcohol; container size multiplied by alcohol-by-volume determines the true dose.

AUDIT is not diagnosis

A high score indicates the need for skilled assessment, while dependence can still be clinically important after recent reduction and a lower score.

Feedback works best

Personalised links to sleep, mood, blood pressure, medication or family goals usually create more useful discussion than generic warnings.

Normal tests reassure falsely

Many people with risky use have normal liver biochemistry, and abnormal results cannot specify the pattern or prove dependence.

Referral needs a bridge

Warm handover, permission to share relevant details and attention to fear or stigma make specialist uptake more likely than passive signposting.

Common pitfalls

  1. 01

    Describing a standard bottle or glass as one drink without calculating its volume and strength.

  2. 02

    Treating AUDIT-C as a diagnostic test rather than a prompt to complete fuller assessment.

  3. 03

    Offering simple brief advice to someone with probable dependence who needs withdrawal and specialist assessment.

  4. 04

    Recommending immediate abstinence without first checking physical dependence and previous complicated withdrawal.

  5. 05

    Using normal liver tests to reassure that current alcohol exposure is harmless.

  6. 06

    Ignoring pregnancy, suicide risk, domestic abuse, dependent children, driving or sedative co-use during a consumption-focused consultation.

JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
  • Jaundice, ascites, haematemesis, melaena, severe abdominal pain, fever or unexplained weight loss may indicate serious alcohol-related physical disease.
  • Pregnancy, frailty, cognitive impairment, homelessness, poor support or important medical comorbidity lowers the threshold for specialist assessment and supported change.
    • 05
    Collateral and records with consent
    Why
    Clarify consumption, previous withdrawal, functioning and safeguarding where the account is incomplete.
    Interpretation and limitations
    Use discrepancies to explore context rather than to punish disclosure, and act without consent only where lawful risk duties require it.
    3
    EscalationProvide a drinking diary or equivalent support and arrange review; escalate to extended intervention or specialist assessment if harm persists.
    03Specialist routeRefer possible dependence activelyAUDIT is 20 or more, dependence is clinically suspected, withdrawal risk is present or needs are complex.+
    1. 1Advise against an unsupported sudden reduction and assess whether hospital, specialist community or another supported setting is safest.
    2. 2Make an active referral to the local alcohol service or hospital alcohol team, including withdrawal and medical risk information.
    3. 3Continue physical, mental-health and safeguarding care if referral is declined, revisiting motivation and emergency advice at future contacts.