Lessons learnt—a systematic review of the development, delivery and impact of interventions to improve interprofessional collaborative practice for hospital teams

Abstract

Background: Effective interprofessional collaborative practice (IPCP) is essential for delivering high-quality integrated care. However, hospital teams often lack the support to collaborative effectively across professional boundaries, in ways that are relational, responsive to context, and inclusive of diverse perspectives. Clear guidance on how best to strengthen IPCP in hospital settings remains limited.   Approach: This systematic review sought to identify and critically examine interventions that demonstrated empirical improvements in IPCP within hospital teams. The Biggs’ 3P Framework—Presage, Process, and Product— informed our analysis which considered the development, implementation and evaluation of interventions. This framework was selected for its capacity to illuminate the interplay between contextual factors, intervention design, and outcomes. Six databases were searched, yielding 12,754 records, with 73 studies meeting eligibility criteria. Data extraction focused on how interventions were designed for the local context, the nature of stakeholder involvement, team members targeted, and evaluation outcomes reported.   Results: In the development of interventions, only 35% of studies were informed by local needs assessments. No studies reported involving consumers (current, past, or future patient or carer of the health service). Although stakeholder engagement with healthcare leaders was evident in some studies, reporting of co-design methodologies was rare. Interventions involved a range of strategies, and frequently a combination of strategies, which included training (81%), tools (37%), and organisational changes (27%).   Most interventions targeted doctors and nurses in high-acuity hospital settings, with limited attention to allied health or broader team configurations. Evaluation approaches commonly assessed team functioning, as well as performance and effectiveness. However, the absence of consumer involvement, coupled with limited responsiveness to local context, reflects a persistent reliance on decontextualised strategies to improve IPCP. This suggests that IPCP is seen as a technical or procedural issue, rather than socially constructed relational practice.   Implications: By synthesising evidence across diverse interventions, this review offers practical insights into how IPCP can be more effectively supported in hospital teams. It highlights a critical gap in the design, delivery and evaluation of IPCP interventions. The nature of IPCP required within local contexts must be central to intervention development. Co-design with local healthcare team members—including clinicians, non-clinical staff, or consumers—is critical in ensuring the development of meaningful and contextually relevant interventions.   Co-design methodologies, such as experience-based co-design, offer promising avenues for acknowledging the socially constructed nature of collaborative practice and for surfacing the lived experiences of those involved. Strengthening workforce capacity therefore requires more than skill acquisition—it demands inclusive, relational, and locally responsive approaches that support teams to work collaboratively in ways that are co-constructed, sustained, and embedded in everyday practice.