Evaluation of the appropriate use of a CIWA-Ar alcohol withdrawal protocol in the general hospital setting

ABSTRACT

Background: The Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment-Alcohol, Revised (CIWA-Ar) is an assessment tool used to quantify alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) severity and inform benzodiazepine treatment for alcohol withdrawal. Objectives: To evaluate the prescribing patterns and appropriate use of the CIWA-Ar protocol in a general hospital setting, as determined by the presence or absence of documented AWS risk factors, patients’ ability to communicate, and provider awareness of the CIWA-Ar order. Methods: This retrospective chart review included 118 encounters of hospitalized patients placed on a CIWA-Ar protocol during one year. The following data were collected for each encounter: patient demographics, admitting diagnosis, ability to communicate, and admission blood alcohol level; and medical specialty of the clinician ordering CIWA-Ar, documentation of the presence or absence of established AWS risk factors, specific parameters of the protocol ordered, service admitted to, provider documentation of awareness of the active protocol within 48 h of initial order, total benzodiazepine dose equivalents administered and associated adverse events. Results: 57% of patients who started on a CIWA-Ar protocol had either zero or one documented risk factor for AWS (19% and 38% respectively). 20% had no documentation of recent alcohol use. 14% were unable to communicate. 19% of medical records lacked documentation of provider awareness of the ordered protocol. Benzodiazepine associated adverse events were documented in 15% of encounters. Conclusions: The judicious use of CIWA-Ar protocols in general hospitals requires mechanisms to ensure assessment of validated alcohol withdrawal risk factors, exclusion of patients who cannot communicate, and continuity of care during transitions.

KEYWORDS:

• Alcohol withdrawal syndrome
• alcohol withdrawal
• PAWSS
• benzodiazepine
• CIWA-Ar

Declaration of interest

The authors had no financial interests, arrangement, or affiliation with any organizations that could be perceived as a real or apparent conflict of interest in the content of this publication.

This study was exempt by the institutional review board at Stony Brook University Hospital as a quality improvement project.

Funding

No funding was received for this chart review.

Additional information

Funding

No funding was received for this chart review.