Urine drug testing (UDT) plays a significant role in monitoring patients on chronic opioid therapy (COT) for non-medical opioid use (NMOU). UDT, at times, can be inconsistent and misleading. We present a case where a patient on a buprenorphine patch had false negative results.

A female in her 70s with metastatic breast cancer presented with uncontrolled pain from a T6 compression fracture. She had no relief with tramadol 50 mg every 6 hours as needed. Due to an allergic reaction to hydromorphone, our team prescribed a buprenorphine patch of 5 μg/h. Subsequently, she expressed excellent pain control, and the clinician confirmed the patch placement on examination. She underwent a UDT during the visit. The UDT was negative for both buprenorphine and its metabolites. The literature review showed that false negative UDT results are relatively common among patients with low-dose buprenorphine patches. The combination of a thorough physical examination, a review of the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program, and reassuring scores on screening tools placed her at low risk for NMOU.

Buprenorphine has a ceiling effect on respiratory depression and a lower risk for addiction. However, when used in low doses, the drug might not have enough metabolites in the urine, leading to a false negative UDT. Such results might affect patient–physician relationships.

In addition to the UDT, a thorough history, screening for NMOU, physical exam, a review of PDMP, and a good understanding of opioid metabolism are necessary to help guide pain management.

The growing demand for palliative care has been accelerated due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, providing community-based palliative care was also more difficult to do safely and faced several challenges. The goal of this integrative review was to identify, describe, and synthesize previous studies on the challenges for health professionals delivering palliative care in the community during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Searches were carried out on the Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Care Online, PubMed, Embase, and Expanded Academic databases. Journals typically reporting palliative care and community health studies were also searched (Palliative Medicine, Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, and Health & Social Care in the Community). All articles were peer-reviewed and published in English between December 2019 and September 2022.

Database and hand searches identified 1231 articles. After duplicates were removed and the exclusion criteria applied, 27 articles were included in the final review. Themes in the research findings centered on 6 interconnected categories. The challenges imposed by the pandemic (lack of resources, communication difficulties, access to education and training, and interprofessional coordination), as well as the varying levels of success of the health-care responses, impacted the well-being of health professionals and, in turn, the well-being and care of patients and families.

The pandemic has provided the impetus for rethinking flexible and innovative approaches to overcome the challenges of delivering community palliative care. However, existing governmental and organizational policies require revision to improve communication and effective interprofessional collaboration, and additional resources are needed. A blended model of virtual and in-person palliative care delivery may provide the best solution to community palliative care delivery moving forward.

To investigate the prevalence and current approaches to clinical management of chronic nonmalignant pain in patients referred to palliative care services.

A systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021205432). Six databases were searched on 25 August 2020 and again on 11 July 2022: PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier Scopus, PsychINFO, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Search included prevalence or intervention studies with patients who had chronic nonmalignant pain and were referred to palliative care services. Screening was undertaken independently by 2 reviewers.

The searches returned 417 titles; subsequent screening identified 5 eligible studies, 4 from the USA and 1 from Hong Kong, including 2 cohort and 3 cross-sectional studies. Sample sizes ranged from 137 to 323, with a total of 1,056 patients. The prevalence of chronic nonmalignant pain ranged from 14% to 34% across different palliative care settings. There was significant crossover of pain types; 54% of patients with chronic no-malignant pain had additional cancer-related pain or cancer treatment–related pain. Opioids were used to manage stand-alone chronic nonmalignant pain for 39% of patients compared to 58% with mixed chronic nonmalignant pain and other pain diagnoses.

Five studies have documented the prevalence of chronic nonmalignant pain of 14–34% in palliative care. Further research including prevalence and treatment studies would provide clearer evidence for best practice management of chronic nonmalignant pain in the palliative care setting.

Early identification of palliative care (PC) needs is crucial to provide appropriate holistic care to patients. The objective of this integrative review is to synthesize the methods used to identify the prevalence of PC needs.

An integrative review search of the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus with full text, ProQuest, Wiley InterScience, ScienceDirect, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science with publications from 2010 to 2020 was carried out in English. Empirical studies examining the methods used to determine the prevalence of PC needs were included. The methods of data extraction of the included articles were categorized by data source, study setting, and data collector. Quality appraisal was performed using QualSyst.

Of the 5,410 articles screened, 29 were included in this review. Two articles identified the prevalence of PC needs in a community that was supported by a network of volunteers, while 27 studies considered this at a continent, country, hospital, and/or primary care facility level as represented by physicians, nurses, and researchers.

Various methods have been used to determine the prevalence of PC needs, and the outcomes are valuable for policymakers in developing PC services when allocating resources at the national and community levels. Future research to identify PC needs across health settings, especially primary care facilities, should consider providing PC across a spectrum of care settings.