Skip to textbook content
Doctor’s PassportTextbook
QuestionsFlashcardsBriefsDashboardAccount
TopicsAll topics

Loading topic navigation…

Textbook navigation
TopicsAll topics

Loading topic navigation…

Educational draft · awaiting clinical reviewUse Rapid for revision, not patient-care decisions. Check current national and local guidance and the BNF or BNFC before acting.

Shared decision-making and relapse prevention

Psychiatry · UK scope · Sources checked 7 Sept 2026 · Clinical review pending

RapidFull
!
Early warning signs can become an emergency

Rapidly escalating mania, severe depressive self-neglect, psychosis or suicidal intent may exceed a routine relapse plan.

Action: Arrange urgent clinical assessment when deterioration creates immediate risk, using the crisis contact or emergency service appropriate to the situation rather than waiting for the next planned review.

Synopsis

Combine clear risk communication and supported treatment choice with an individual relapse plan that specifies early signs, practical responses, medication arrangements and routes to timely care.

  • Shared decision making combines the best available evidence with the person's values, preferences and practical circumstances.
  • Discuss benefits, harms, uncertainty and the option of no treatment or no change where clinically and legally applicable.
  • Use absolute risks, natural frequencies, a consistent denominator and a defined time period when communicating numerical outcomes.
  • Check understanding with teach-back and record the agreed decision, responsibilities, next steps and review date.
  • A relapse plan should link personal warning signs to specific actions and named contacts rather than list symptoms without a response.
  • Any pre-agreed extra medicine or dose change requires an explicit prescriber-authorised protocol; relatives should not improvise doses or administer secret medication.
  • For depressive relapse prevention, discuss continued treatment and review ongoing antidepressants at least every six months.

Key red flags

A relapse plan does not justify waiting when suicidal intent, dangerous disinhibition or inability to maintain essential self-care indicates a need for urgent assessment.

Investigation priorities

01
Options and values reviewFirst step

Clarify the actual decision and the outcomes that matter most.

Management branches

Shared choiceMake the decision understandable and reviewable

A treatment, monitoring or prevention decision has more than one reasonable option or important personal trade-offs.

  1. Explain the decision and available choices, ask what matters most and discuss expected benefits, harms and uncertainty using accessible comparable information.
  2. Invite questions and check understanding with teach-back, providing time or decision support appropriate to the urgency and the person's needs.
  3. Record the agreed option, reasons, next actions, responsibilities and review date, explaining how the person can seek an earlier review or change their mind.
Open full textbook →Answer 2 questions
Sources and review status4 sources · checked 7 Sept 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 7 Sept 2026; clinical approval remains outstanding.

  • NICE NG197 Shared decision making recommendationsAccessible choices, risk communication, teach-back and review.
  • NICE CG185 Bipolar disorder crisis and relapse planningJoint risk plan, warning signs, medicine protocols and contact arrangements.
  • NICE NG222 Depression relapse prevention recommendationsContinuation choices, psychological session numbers and six-monthly antidepressant review.
  • NICE SC1 Managing medicines in care homesCapacity, supported decisions and specific safeguards for covert administration in adult care-home residents.

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

Authoring stateRapid draftClinical stateAwaiting reviewJurisdictionUnited Kingdom