There is a perceived need for schools and casualty departments to receive appropriate information and guidelines in order to minimise the effect of PTSD. A recommended screening battery for PTSD was administered at the start of a two-session debriefing group and again three months later to a group of seven young survivors of a minibus accident. No studies using this screen other than those of shipping disasters have been reported to date. Screen scores were compared with those of survivors of the cruise ship Jupiter. No significant differences were found between minibus survivors when assessed at six months (before intervention), and Jupiter survivors, who when assessed at five months had already undergone debriefing. Post-debriefing assessment of minibus survivors demonstrated significant reductions on all measures.

Detoxification refers to the safe discontinuation from a substance of dependence and is distinct from relapse prevention. Detoxification usually takes between a few days and a few weeks to complete, depending on the substance being misused, the severity of dependence and the support available to the user. Psychosocial therapies alongside pharmacological treatments are essential to improve outcome. The dependencies considered in this overview are detoxification from opioids (with methadone, buprenorphine, α2‐adrenoceptor agonists and adjunct medications), alcohol (with benzodiazepines, anti‐glutamatergics and γ‐aminobutyric acid (GABA)‐ergic drugs), stimulants and cannabis (with no clear recommended pharmacological treatments), benzodiazepines (with dose tapering) and nicotine (with nicotine replacement therapy, antidepressants and partial agonists). Evidence is limited by a lack of controlled trials robust enough for review bodies, and more research is required into optimal treatment doses and regimes, alone and in combination.

Buprenorphine/naloxone, methadone and lofexidine are medications with utility in the treatment of opiate withdrawal. We report the first randomised controlled trial to compare the effects of these two medications on withdrawal symptoms and outcome during opiate induction/stabilisation and detoxification. A double-blind randomised controlled trial was conducted in an outpatient satellite clinic of a specialist drug service. Eighty opiate dependent individuals meeting DSM-IV criteria for opiate dependence, using ⩽ ½ g heroin smoked/chased or ¼ g heroin injected or ⩽ 30mg methadone, with ⩽ 3 years of opioid dependency, underwent a short-term opiate treatment programme involving induction/stabilisation on methadone 30mg or buprenorphine/naloxone 4mg/1mg, followed by detoxification (where the methadone group was assisted by lofexidine). The main outcome measures were urine drug screens for opiates and withdrawal and craving questionnaires. There were no overall differences in positive urine drug screens and drop-outs during any phase of the study. During induction/stabilisation, withdrawal symptoms subsided more slowly for buprenorphine/naloxone than for methadone, and craving was significantly higher in the buprenorphine/naloxone group (p<0.05, 95% confidence interval −3.5, −0.38). During detoxification, withdrawal symptoms were significantly greater and the peak of withdrawal was earlier for the methadone/lofexidine group than the buprenorphine/naloxone group (p<0.01, 95% confidence interval 3.0, 8.3). Methadone/lofexidine and buprenorphine/naloxone had comparable outcomes during rapid outpatient stabilisation and detoxification in low dose opiate users

Buprenorphine is a partial μ-opioid receptor agonist that is being increasingly used in clinical practice in the treatment of opioid dependence in the UK, USA, and, elsewhere. Its unique pharmacological properties mean it is a relatively safe drug, it can be given by alternate day dispensing, and it is associated with relatively mild symptoms on withdrawal. The interpretation of the research literature on buprenorphine is however, complex, and often appears to be in conflict with how buprenorphine is used in clinical practice. This article describes these apparent contradictions, their likely explanations, and how these may further inform our clinical practice. The article also describes the clinically relevant pharmacological properties of buprenorphine, compares it to methadone, relates the evidence to clinical experience, and provides practical advice on how to manage the most common clinical techniques. The best quality evidence suggests that very rapid buprenorphine induction is not associated with a higher drop-out rate than methadone, that buprenorphine is probably as good as methadone for maintenance treatment, and is superior to methadone and α-2 adrenergic agonists for detoxification. However, buprenorphine cannot yet be considered the 'gold standard' treatment for opiate dependence because of the higher drop-out rates that may occur on induction using current techniques, its high-cost relative to methadone, and because the place of buprenorphine in treatment is still continuing to evolve.