❌

Reading view

Ailanthone suppresses HSV-1 and eases keratitis in mice

A plant-derived compound called ailanthone reduced HSV-1 replication in several cell models and eased corneal disease in a mouse model of herpes simplex keratitis, according to the study. The researchers found that ailanthone acted mainly after the virus entered cells and linked much of this effect to reduced expression of integrin beta 2, or ITGB2, a host protein that supports viral replication. The results identify ailanthone as a potential drug candidate, but the experiments do not establish that it is safe or effective in people.

The team began by screening natural compounds and testing ailanthone in African green monkey kidney Vero cells infected with HSV-1. Concentrations of 100 to 3,000 nanomolar reduced transcription of the viral immediate-early genes ICP0 and ICP4 and the late gene gD in a dose-dependent manner. The compound also reduced plaque formation and the concentration of progeny virus released into culture. Ailanthone had a half-maximal cytotoxic concentration above 10,000 nanomolar in these cells, while its half-maximal effective concentration against viral replication was 197.4 nanomolar, giving a selectivity index greater than 50. It also suppressed HSV-1-induced increases in the inflammatory cytokine genes IL-1B and TNF-α.

Antiviral activity was subsequently observed in human corneal epithelial cells, a model more directly relevant to the tissue affected by keratitis. Ailanthone concentrations of 100 to 500 nanomolar markedly reduced the cytopathic effects of HSV-1F, lowered expression of ICP0, ICP4 and gD, and reduced the viral induction of IL-1B and TNF-α. Its effective concentration in these cells was 50.16 nanomolar, with a cytotoxicity concentration above 10,000 nanomolar and a selectivity index greater than 100. The researchers also tested the compound in human retinal pigment epithelial ARPE-19 cells, where it reduced viral gene expression, plaque formation and progeny-virus titers while showing low cytotoxicity.

Activity was not restricted to the laboratory HSV-1F strain. In ARPE-19 cells, ailanthone concentration-dependently inhibited the late gD gene in the clinical acyclovir-resistant strain HSV-1/153, whereas 1,000 nanomolar acyclovir had little effect. The compound’s effective concentration was 35.05 nanomolar against HSV-1F and 227.4 nanomolar against HSV-1/153, with selectivity indices above 100 for both strains. A time-of-addition experiment indicated that ailanthone did not prevent attachment of HSV-1 to cells. It reduced entry under one experimental schedule and had its strongest effect on post-entry replication, where it lowered gD expression.

To investigate how the compound might work, the researchers combined computational target prediction with protein-interaction network analysis. They identified 36 targets shared by ailanthone and herpes simplex keratitis, then selected ITGB2 as a highly connected hub in the resulting network and as a top candidate in molecular docking. The predicted docking score for ailanthone and ITGB2 was −8.6 kcal per mole. Computational predictions alone cannot establish direct binding, so the team also performed a drug affinity responsive target stability assay in THP-1 cell lysates. Ailanthone protected ITGB2 from digestion by the protease pronase E in a dose-dependent manner, while acyclovir did not, providing biochemical evidence consistent with a direct interaction.

Functional experiments then tested whether ITGB2 was necessary for the antiviral effect. Three independent small interfering RNAs reduced ITGB2 messenger RNA and protein in THP-1 cells. Following HSV-1 infection, this knockdown lowered gD messenger RNA and protein and reduced the number of plaques produced when culture supernatants were transferred to fresh Vero cells. The converse pattern appeared when ITGB2 was overexpressed: elevated ITGB2 increased gD expression in infected cells, and it partially counteracted the reduction in gD protein caused by ailanthone in 293T and ARPE-19 cells. Together, these loss- and gain-of-function results support the conclusion that ailanthone’s antiviral activity is mediated at least partly by lowering ITGB2.

The researchers next tested ailanthone in an acute mouse model of HSV-1 keratitis. Six-week-old male BALB/c mice received a corneal scratch followed by application of HSV-1F, then received intraperitoneal ailanthone at 1 or 5 milligrams per kilogram or acyclovir at 5 milligrams per kilogram on days 1, 3 and 5 after infection. The methods section states that six animals were assigned to each group, although the discussion says five mice per group were used in the animal experiment. The 5-milligram-per-kilogram ailanthone treatment significantly reduced clinical disease scores, improved the appearance of the cornea under normal and cobalt-blue illumination, and lowered fluorescein staining scores on days 3 and 5. Hematoxylin and eosin staining at day 6 also indicated reduced corneal inflammation, and viral titers in ocular swabs were significantly lower than in infected mice given vehicle.

Analysis of mouse corneal tissue was consistent with the proposed mechanism. ITGB2 was upregulated in the corneas of infected animals, and ailanthone reduced its fluorescence intensity in a dose-dependent manner. Acyclovir did not significantly alter corneal ITGB2 levels. The investigators interpreted this as evidence that ailanthone differs from a direct viral DNA-replication inhibitor: the data are consistent with modulation of a host dependency factor rather than action solely through a viral enzyme. However, the study did not determine precisely how binding to ITGB2 leads to lower protein abundance. The authors note that transcriptional regulation, changes in messenger-RNA stability, or enhanced protein degradation could all be involved, and dedicated experiments would be required to distinguish among them.

Several limitations constrain how far the findings can be generalized. The cell experiments used established lines, including corneal epithelial and retinal pigment epithelial cells, rather than primary human corneal cells or an intact human immune system. The animal experiment examined acute primary infection in young male mice, whereas recurrent reactivation and the inflammation associated with repeated episodes are important features of human herpes simplex keratitis. Ailanthone was administered by intraperitoneal injection, but no topical ophthalmic formulation, corneal penetration, intraocular distribution, or optimized dosing regimen was evaluated. Long-term ocular toxicity and safety under repeated exposure also remain unknown. The natural compound may additionally affect multiple targets, and compensation among integrins could limit or alter its effects. The evidence therefore supports further preclinical investigation of ailanthone and ITGB2 as a host-directed antiviral strategy, not a clinical recommendation or a claim of human therapeutic benefit.

Subject of Research: Preclinical evaluation of ailanthone as a host-directed inhibitor of HSV-1 replication and herpes simplex keratitis.

Article Title: Natural compound ailanthone alleviates herpes simplex keratitis in mice by inhibiting HSV-1 replication

Article References: Chen, L., Yang, E., Zhang, X., Zhang, L., Wu, L., Chen, S., Jin, W., Qin, Q., Chen, R., Wu, J., & Chen, D. (2026). Natural compound ailanthone alleviates herpes simplex keratitis in mice by inhibiting HSV-1 replication. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 17, Article 1937590. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2026.1937590

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2026.1937590

Keywords: HSV-1, herpes simplex keratitis, ailanthone, ITGB2, host-directed antivirals, viral replication, corneal infection, mouse model, integrin beta 2, drug resistance, Natural, compound

  •  

Netflix Is Great at Making Money. Its Problem Is Keeping Viewers Hooked.

The streaming service reported a 12 percent increase in quarterly revenue, but acknowledged that stagnant viewership, particularly in the U.S. and Canada, was a major concern.
  •  
  •  
  •  

October Patch Tuesday: 1,408 CVEs, 1 exploited flaw and a SharePoint surprise

Microsoft’s October 2026 Patch Tuesday is the year’s largest release, with 1,408 CVEs requiring customer action, 72 of them rated critical. September, the previous high, carried 963. One CVE is already exploited: CVE-2026-96951, a Windows Shell flaw that bypasses Mark of the Web. Two were publicly disclosed before release, in the .NET Framework and the MessagePack-CSharp library. Separately, on 25 September Microsoft reported attacks against CVE-2026-65660, a SharePoint Server flaw fixed in August. Readiness recommends a Patch Now scheduling for Windows, Office, Exchange and the developer tooling, and a standard release schedule for SQL Server. The Readiness team has published an infographic summarising deployment risk by product family.

Known issues

On 14 October, Microsoft added a known issue to this month’s Windows 11 updates, KB5127648 for versions 24H2, 25H2 and 26H2, and KB5127646 for 26H1. Non-admin users might be unable to open Remote Desktop connections to devices that have Administrator protection enabled, with error 0xC000000D. The issue started with September’s non-security preview update. The Windows 11 security baselines enable Administrator protection by default, so test remote access to managed hosts before broad deployment. Microsoft’s mitigation is to turn off Administrator protection temporarily through your policy management tool, and a fix will follow in a future update.

Two issues remain open:

  • Some USB Audio Class 1.0 devices might fail to start or produce no sound. The 14 September out-of-band update resolved part of this, and for the remaining symptoms Microsoft directs IT administrators to Microsoft Support for Business.
  • Windows Server Update Services still does not display synchronisation error details on Server 2025 and Server 2022. Microsoft removed the function to address CVE-2025-59287 and offers no workaround.

And three are now closed:

  • The incorrect “Microsoft Defender Antivirus is turned off” notifications, still open when we published in September, were fixed by Defender Antivirus update 4.18.26080.4, released on 17 September.
  • On Windows 11, the October update fixes Explorer failing to start after sign-in on multi-user systems such as Azure Virtual Desktop with FSLogix, which left users at a black screen.
  • On Windows 10, Windows 11 23H2 and Server 2016 and 2019, it fixes File History failing to back up or restore and showing a false “Reconnect your drive” message.

Major revisions and mitigations

Between the September and October releases, from 9 September to 12 October, Microsoft’s Security Update Guide notifications covered 111 entries for Microsoft’s own products, not counting Chromium republications for Edge. Of those 111, 90 are true revisions rather than new entries. September’s window had one.

  • On 17 September, 84 of September’s CVEs gained Office for Mac updates. Each revision note tells customers running affected Mac software to “install the update for their product to be protected”.
  • On 16 September, Microsoft corrected the scoring of three critical SQL Server remote code execution flaws from September, CVE-2026-67378, CVE-2026-67631 and CVE-2026-67643. The scores now record that “an attacker does not require any privileges”. Microsoft calls this an informational change.
  • On 25 September, Microsoft revised CVE-2026-65660, a SharePoint Server remote code execution flaw fixed in August, to state that it “had reliable evidence of observed attacks against exploitation of this vulnerability”. CISA added it to its list of known exploited vulnerabilities the same day. The Security Update Guide still shows “Exploited: No” for this CVE, so a report filtered on that flag will miss it. If any SharePoint server lacks the August update, install it now.
  • Of the 21 new entries, 18 are critical cloud-side flaws in Azure, Microsoft 365 Copilot, Dataverse and Fabric, all marked “Customer action required: No”. Two are Edge flaws, and one is CVE-2026-96940 in Exchange Server, published on 2 October and covered below.

Microsoft has published no mitigations and no workarounds in the October release.

Windows lifecycle and enforcement updates

These support milestones passed with this release on 13 October, as scheduled:

The next milestones fall on 10 November 2026, the date of November’s Patch Tuesday. .NET 8 and .NET 9 reach the end of support, as do PowerShell 7.4 and 7.5. Windows 11 Enterprise and Education 23H2, and IoT Enterprise 23H2, reach the end of updates, and Microsoft says November’s update “will be the last update available for these editions”.

Microsoft also starts or tightens several enforcement changes with this release:

  • Windows 11 24H2, 25H2 and 26H2, and Windows Server 2025, now restrict NTLMv1-derived credentials for single sign-on by default. Where Credential Guard is off, Microsoft warns this “might affect Wi-Fi, Ethernet and VPN connections that use MS-CHAPv2-based authentication” (KB5066470).
  • AD FS Distributed Key Manager container permissions move into enforcement mode. Supported servers remediate automatically, but Server 2012 and 2012 R2 need manual remediation (KB5121391).
  • ReFS volumes on removable media enter an audit phase, and blocking is enabled by default from the January 2027 update (KB5130741).
  • The Windows Production PCA 2011 Secure Boot certificate, used to sign the Windows boot loader, expires on 19 October. Devices without its replacement, Windows UEFI CA 2023, keep starting and updating normally, but they stop receiving new early-boot protections (KB5062710).

Microsoft’s test guidance for this release runs to 496 Windows entries, 41 of them flagged as high risk, against 466 and 55 in September. Printing, scanning and font rendering account for 31 of the 41. The Readiness team recommends these testing priorities:

  • Printing. Print documents with mixed fonts from 32-bit and 64-bit applications to physical and virtual printers. Add network printers by discovery and by IP address, and print through a shared print server, a USB printer and a PostScript driver.
  • Downloaded files. The exploited Shell flaw bypasses Mark of the Web, so open files and shortcuts downloaded from the internet and confirm the SmartScreen and security warnings still appear.
  • Remote access. Test Remote Desktop with a non-admin account against hosts that have Administrator protection enabled, and test Wi-Fi and VPN connections that use MS-CHAPv2.
  • Application installs. Install, repair and uninstall a representative set of MSI packages, including packages with script custom actions. Windows Installer takes 38 fixes this month.
  • Network servers. Run DNS servers (52 fixes) and DHCP servers (18) under load, and confirm leases, zone transfers and conditional forwarders behave as before.

Each month, we break down the update cycle into product families, as defined by Microsoft, with the following groupings.

Browsers

For the third month in a row, Microsoft’s Patch Tuesday release lists no browser CVEs. Edge security fixes arrived between releases instead. Between 9 September and 12 October, Microsoft published 414 CVEs for Microsoft Edge in the Security Update Guide: 409 republished from Chromium and five specific to Edge. None carries an exploited flag, and no Edge release in that period reported an exploit in the wild.

Microsoft Windows

Windows takes 1,122 CVEs this month, 42 of them critical. Elevation of privilege accounts for 617 entries, information disclosure for 200 and remote code execution for 179. Of the 42 critical entries, 31 are remote code execution, nine are elevation of privilege and two are spoofing.

  • The exploited flaw is CVE-2026-96951, a Windows Shell security feature bypass that evades Mark of the Web defences. An attacker must convince a user to open a crafted file or follow a link. CISA added it to its list of known exploited vulnerabilities on 13 October, with a remediation date of 16 October.
  • DHCP takes 18 fixes, six of them critical remote code execution: five in DHCP Server and one in the DHCP client. DNS Server takes 52, 10 of them remote code execution, though none is critical. Critical remote code execution also affects Hyper-V, Message Queuing, Microsoft QUIC, the Remote Desktop Gateway, Windows Deployment Services, Active Directory Domain Services, NDES and the multicast transport driver.
  • In file and image handling, the Raw Image Extension has three critical fixes, one of them a CVE assigned by Cisco Talos, and the PostScript printer driver takes three more. Text shaping takes two, and Media Foundation, the codecs library, the video decoder, GDI+, the graphics component and the Windows PDF component take one each.
  • The virtualisation-based security enclave takes eight fixes, five of them critical elevation of privilege.
  • The most-patched areas are DNS Server at 52, Win32k at 48, the Windows Kernel at 46 and Windows Installer at 38.

Add this Windows update to your Patch Now schedule. Every client needs the fix for the exploited Shell flaw, and DHCP servers and Hyper-V hosts need the critical server-side fixes.

Microsoft Office

Microsoft released 180 Office CVEs this month, 26 of them critical, and remote code execution accounts for 107.

  • Client updates on Windows are Click-to-Run only, for Microsoft 365 Apps, Office LTSC 2021 and Office LTSC 2024. Office for Mac updates ship in the same release this month, rather than nine days later as they did in September. Excel takes 69 fixes, 11 of them critical. Word takes 22, Access 13, Outlook 10 with five critical, PowerPoint nine with four critical, and Visio three, all critical.
  • SharePoint Server Subscription Edition takes 34 CVEs in KB5002927, two of them critical. SharePoint Server 2016 and 2019 left extended support on 14 July 2026, and two of this month’s flaws list them as affected with no update: CVE-2026-69943 for both versions and CVE-2026-97783 for 2019.
  • Office Online Server takes 43 CVEs in KB5002928. Skype for Business Server takes three, in KB5132779 for 2015 CU13, KB5131693 for 2019 CU8 and KB5131692 for Subscription Edition CU1.

Add these updates to your Patch Now schedule, because 25 of the 26 critical entries affect Excel, Outlook, PowerPoint, Visio and Word.

Microsoft Exchange and SQL Server

Exchange has one critical entry this month and SQL Server has none.

  • Exchange Server has seven CVEs across 2016 CU23, 2019 CU14 and CU15, and Subscription Edition: one critical remote code execution, CVE-2026-70571, five elevations of privilege and one spoofing flaw. Six are fixed by the 13 October updates: KB5128895 for Subscription Edition, KB5128896 for 2019 CU15, KB5128897 for 2019 CU14 and KB5128898 for 2016 CU23.
  • The seventh, CVE-2026-96940, was published on 2 October. Microsoft lists it against a separate set of updates released that day, KB5129955 to KB5129958, not against the 13 October updates, so confirm both sets are installed. Microsoft rates both CVE-2026-96940 and the critical entry as “Exploitation More Likely”..
  • SQL Server has 22 CVEs, none of them critical: eight remote code execution, seven elevation of privilege, four information disclosure and three denials of service. Each supported branch gets a cumulative update and a GDR: 2025 (KB5126967, KB5128492), 2022 (KB5126934, KB5128493), 2019 (KB5128494, KB5128495) and 2017 (KB5128496, KB5128497).

Exchange goes on the Patch Now list. SQL Server goes on the Schedule list because none of its 22 entries is critical. If September’s SQL Server update is still outstanding, install it first.

Microsoft Developer Tools

Microsoft released 66 CVEs across its developer tooling this month: two critical, 63 important and one moderate. Remote code execution accounts for 18 entries and elevation of privilege for 13.

  • Both critical entries also affect Windows. CVE-2026-105016 is a remote code execution flaw in Microsoft QUIC that needs no authentication or user interaction, and it affects .NET 8, 9, 10 and 11 on Windows and Visual Studio 2022 and 2026. CVE-2026-96222 is an AD FS certificate validation flaw that Microsoft lists against both the .NET Framework and Windows Server.
  • Two entries were publicly disclosed before release. CVE-2026-108398 in the .NET Framework lets an authenticated attacker bypass Windows Defender Application Control. CVE-2026-92707, a denial-of-service vulnerability in the MessagePack-CSharp library assigned by GitHub, affects Visual Studio and the ASP.NET Core SignalR MessagePack protocol.
  • Visual Studio Code has 10 fixes, five of them security feature bypasses, and PowerShell 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 take two.

Add these updates to your Patch Now schedule, starting with the .NET updates that carry the QUIC fix.

Adobe (and third-party updates)

Adobe published 11 security bulletins on 13 October, covering 175 CVEs across ColdFusion, Experience Manager, Commerce, Photoshop, Bridge, FrameMaker, Dimension, the Substance 3D tools and the Content Credentials SDK. None is rated priority 1, and Adobe is not aware of exploits for any of them. No Acrobat or Reader security update for this month. I mentioned last month that we are in for a few months of extraordinary patch releases. Harking back to 2003 (when I started work on the nascent field of Microsoft patch management), with Microsoft releasing just  51 updates, anything over a 1000, much less 1400 CVE entries would have been unimaginable. I don’t think that we are at a “patch maximum” yet — but I hope that things calm down soon.

  •  

Microsoft’s Patch Tuesday updates: Keeping up with the latest fixes

Long before Taco Tuesday became part of the pop-culture vernacular, Tuesdays were synonymous with security — and for anyone in the tech world, they still are.  Patch Tuesday, as you most likely know, refers to the day each month when Microsoft releases security updates and patches for its software products — everything from Windows to Office to SQL Server, developer tools to browsers.

The practice, which happens on the second Tuesday of the month, was initiated to streamline the patch distribution process and make it easier for users and IT system administrators to manage updates. Like tacos, Patch Tuesday is here to stay.

Patch Tuesday coverage has long been a staple of Computerworld’s commitment to provide critical information to the IT industry. That’s why we’ve gathered together this collection of recent patches, a rolling list we’ll keep updated each month.

In case you missed a recent Patch Tuesday announcement, here are the latest six months of updates.

October Patch Tuesday: 1,408 CVEs, 1 exploited flaw and a SharePoint surprise

Microsoft just shipped 1,408 vulnerabilities in one month, and a SharePoint flaw it marked “not exploited” is actually under attack right now. Our expert recommends a Patch Now scheduling for Windows, Office, Exchange and the developer tooling, and a standard release schedule for SQL Server.

Get more info on the October 2026 Microsoft security updates.

September Patch Tuesday: 963 CVEs, 2 exploited flaws, 1 message

September’s Patch Tuesday is Microsoft’s biggest of 2026, with 963 CVEs, two exploited flaws and a clear message: prioritize Windows, Office and SQL Server.

Two vulnerabilities are already exploited: CVE-2026-81963 in the Windows Update Stack and CVE-2026-85880 in Advanced Local Procedure Call. Nothing in this release was publicly disclosed ahead of the patch. Readiness recommends a Patch Now scheduling for Windows, Office, SQL Server and the developer tooling, and standard patch release for Exchange.

Get more info on the September 2026 Microsoft security updates.

August’s Patch Tuesday is a monster: 751 fixes, with an exploited Windows flaw

Microsoft’s August 2026 Patch Tuesday closes at 751 CVE entries (across all product families), with 108 rated as critical. One flaw is already exploited, CVE-2026-68820, an elevation of privilege in the Windows WinSock driver (afd.sys). Two more were disclosed but not exploited.

This security-only release earns Patch Now for Windows, Office and Exchange; no SQL Server updates this month. Unfortunately, several critical issues affect server roles: Windows DNS Server carries a cluster of critical RCEs; Windows DHCP Server is the most-populated Microsoft product family at 14 entries. Testing should lead with printing and fonts and the Remote Desktop client, then a WinSock smoke test given the exploited afd.sys flaw.

Get more info on the August 2026 Microsoft security updates.

July’s Patch Tuesday sees an end-of-support collision amidst a massive, record-setting patch wave

Microsoft addressed 722 CVEs this month once the 427 Chromium upstream relays are set aside — roughly three times a normal cycle and one of the largest single months in recent memory. Two vulnerabilities arrive under active exploitation: an elevation of privilege in Active Directory Federation Services (CVE-2026-56155), and an elevation of privilege in SharePoint Server (CVE-2026-56164). A third, a BitLocker security feature bypass (CVE-2026-50661) is publicly disclosed but not yet exploited.

The July 2026 Patch Tuesday earns Patch Now recommendations for Windows, Office, Exchange, and SQL Server. SharePoint has two critical RCEs on top of its exploited zero-day, and Exchange Server returns with a critical on-premises spoofing flaw. Adding to our (dear) administrator’s efforts, SharePoint Server 2016/2019 and SQL Server 2016 all reach end of support today.

More info is available here on Microsoft Security updates for July 2026.

For June, Patch Tuesday means an IT scramble

Microsoft this month released 206 updates affecting Windows, Office, Exchange Server, and its developer tools — including three Windows vulnerabilities already publicly disclosed. That trio includes an elevation of privilege in the Collaborative Translation Framework (CVE-2026-45586), a denial of service in HTTP.sys (CVE-2026-49160), and a BitLocker security feature bypass (CVE-2026-50507). At the moment, none appear to be under active exploitation, but all three are rated “Exploitation More Likely.” 

Even without an exploited zero-day, the June 2026 Patch Tuesday release requires Patch Now recommendations for Windows, Office, and Exchange. The latter is back in the patch picture with a consolidated security update that Microsoft recommends installing “as soon as possible.”

More info is available here on Microsoft Security updates for June 2026.

For May, Patch Tuesday means 139 updates — but no zero-days

Microsoft this month released 139 updates affecting Windows, Office, .NET, and SQL Server (though there were no updates for Microsoft Exchange Server). Despite the absence of zero-days, the May Patch Tuesday update still requires Patch Now recommendations for Windows and Office. 

The combination of three unauthenticated network RCEs (Netlogon, DNS Client, and SSO Plugin for Jira and Confluence), four Word Preview Pane RCEs, the large TCP/IP vulnerability cluster, and the carry-over BitLocker recovery condition (still active on Windows 10 and Windows Server) warrants an accelerated deployment release schedule. 

More info is available here on Microsoft Security updates for May 2026.

  •  

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

  •  

Pesticide linked to cancer and hormone disruption pollutes a quarter of US river miles



A cancer-linked pesticide banned in more than 60 countries around the world contaminates an estimated 25% of river and stream miles in the lower 48 U.S. states, including many waterways used for drinking water, according to a new analysis.

  •  
❌