Education Alone Is Not Enough: What Nursing Home Staff Really Think About Palliative Care

Palliative care has long been framed as a specialist discipline reserved for hospices and oncology wards, but a growing body of evidence insists it belongs everywhere people approach the end of life, including nursing homes, where a large share of deaths in ageing societies now occur. A new qualitative study from Sweden, published in BMC Nursing, offers an unusually candid look at what happens inside care teams after they receive structured palliative care education, and the central finding is striking: training changes how staff think, but thinking alone does not change care. The researchers, Camilla Ekeblom, Carina Lundh Hagelin and Jane Österlind of Marie Cederschiöld University in Stockholm, found that the value of an educational intervention depends on an intricate alignment between individual emotions, relational dynamics and organisational realities, and that when any one of these dimensions falls out of step, the benefits of education can quietly dissolve.

The study set out to explore how nursing home staff reason about providing palliative care after participating in an interprofessional educational intervention, abbreviated in the literature as IPEI. Rather than measuring outcomes with questionnaires, the team chose a descriptive qualitative design, interviewing eighteen staff members drawn from five Swedish nursing homes. The participants represented the full spectrum of people who actually deliver and manage care: registered nurses, assistant nurses, a physician, first-line managers and designated palliative care champions. This breadth matters, because palliative care in nursing homes is not delivered by any single profession; it emerges, or fails to emerge, from the daily interplay of people with different training levels, responsibilities and emotional exposures to dying residents.

Data were collected through semi-structured individual interviews conducted between March and April 2024, and analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis, a method that allows themes to rise from the material itself rather than being forced into pre-existing theoretical boxes. From this analysis, three main categories emerged, and together they map the terrain on which palliative care is actually practised. The first concerns managing one’s own emotions, thoughts and attitudes. The second addresses the significance of relationships, communication and interactions in care. The third captures how staff navigate norms, assumptions and organisational structures in everyday palliative care. The categories correspond, respectively, to the individual, relational and organisational dimensions of the work, and the authors argue that it is the interplay among all three, not any single factor, that determines whether good palliative care becomes possible.

The individual dimension is perhaps the most human part of the findings. Staff described the ongoing internal work of confronting their own feelings about death, ageing and suffering, and of examining assumptions they carried about what palliative care even means. A recurring tension in the literature, echoed here, is the tendency to equate palliative care narrowly with end-of-life care, the final days and hours, rather than understanding it as an approach that can and should be integrated into everyday care over a longer trajectory. The interviews suggested that the educational intervention gave participants opportunities for personal as well as professional development, creating space to reflect on attitudes that had previously gone unexamined. In this sense, education functioned less like a knowledge transfer and more like a mirror, prompting staff to notice how their own emotional responses shaped their clinical decisions.

The relational dimension proved equally consequential. Palliative care in a nursing home is saturated with communication: conversations with residents about what matters to them, exchanges with distressed relatives, coordination between assistant nurses who know the residents intimately and nurses and physicians who carry clinical responsibility. The participants’ reasoning placed relationships and interactions at the heart of care provision, indicating that no amount of theoretical knowledge substitutes for the ability to build trust, listen and communicate across professional boundaries. This is where the interprofessional design of the intervention appears to have paid off. By bringing different professions into a shared educational space, the programme created a common language and, implicitly, a shared understanding of what the team was trying to achieve together, something that fragmented, profession-specific training often fails to produce.

The third dimension, the organisational, is where the study’s message becomes most uncomfortable for policymakers and care home leadership. Staff described navigating norms and assumptions embedded in their workplaces, along with structural conditions that could either support or obstruct a palliative approach. Staffing levels, routines, leadership priorities and workplace culture all shape what is practically possible on a shift where residents are dying, families are anxious and time is scarce. The authors’ conclusion is explicit on this point: providing palliative care was not solely a matter of enhancing staff knowledge. Knowledge and the conditions for care are shaped through the interplay between staff attitudes, their reasoning about care, relational dynamics and organisational conditions. When these dimensions align and mutually reinforce one another, favourable conditions for palliative care may be supported; when they do not, even well-trained staff may find their intentions frustrated.

Why does this matter on a societal scale? Nursing homes accommodate older people with complex needs and account for a large proportion of deaths, which makes palliative care a central component of care in these settings rather than an occasional emergency. Yet access to palliative care remains unequal, particularly for older people, and staff in long-term care often lack sufficient training. The demographic arithmetic is unforgiving: as populations age, the number of people who will die in nursing homes rises, and the quality of their final months depends heavily on the competence and confidence of the workforce that cares for them. Studies like this one move the conversation beyond the simplistic assumption that a training course fixes the problem, and toward a systems view in which education is necessary but insufficient on its own.

The study also carries a methodological lesson for how we evaluate educational interventions in care settings. Much of the existing research measures knowledge gains or self-reported confidence before and after training. Those metrics are useful, but they cannot reveal how staff actually reason about applying what they have learned in the messy reality of daily care. By using inductive content analysis of interviews, the Swedish team surfaced the texture of that reasoning: the hesitations, the emotional labour, the negotiations with colleagues and managers, the quiet adjustments between ideal practice and what the shift allows. The findings suggest that interprofessional educational initiatives work best when they combine theoretical knowledge with opportunities for reflection and practical application, allowing staff to translate concepts into their own working context rather than leaving translation to chance.

There are limits worth noting. The study involved eighteen participants in five Swedish nursing homes, interviewed at a single point in time after the intervention, and qualitative findings are not designed to be statistically generalised. The researchers themselves submitted the work for ethical review, receiving approval from the Swedish Ethical Review Authority, and obtained written informed consent from all participants, but the transferability of the results to other health systems will depend on how similar those systems’ nursing homes and educational programmes are to the Swedish context. Still, the three-dimensional framework that emerged, individual, relational and organisational, offers a portable lens that other teams can use to examine their own settings, and it aligns with a broader international consensus that palliative care competence must be built at every level of an organisation simultaneously.

The most durable insight from this research may be its refusal to locate the solution in any single place. Staff who completed the intervention perceived it as an opportunity for growth, and their reasoning showed genuine movement in how they understood palliative care as an ongoing approach rather than a final act. But their accounts also made clear that attitudes, relationships and structures must pull in the same direction for that understanding to reach residents’ bedsides. For nursing homes everywhere, the implication is a practical checklist of a different kind: train your staff together, give them room to reflect, examine the norms your workplace quietly enforces, and make sure the organisation’s daily conditions match what the education teaches. Where those elements align, palliative care stops being an aspiration and becomes, simply, the way care is done.

Subject of Research: Nursing home staff's reasoning about providing palliative care after an interprofessional educational intervention

Article Title: “Nursing home staff’s reasoning about providing palliative care following an educational intervention – a qualitative interview study”

Article References: Ekeblom, C., Lundh Hagelin, C., & Österlind, J. (2026). “Nursing home staff’s reasoning about providing palliative care following an educational intervention – a qualitative interview study”. BMC Nursing, 25(1), Article 956. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-026-05480-4

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12912-026-05480-4

Keywords: palliative care, nursing homes, older people, interprofessional education, qualitative research, nursing education, end-of-life care, care staff attitudes, organisational conditions, Sweden, BMC Nursing, healthcare workforce