Search

Introduction: An ageing population and a workforce crisis have triggered an ambitious UK strategy for sustained delivery of healthcare. In perioperative care (the management of patients from contemplation of surgery until full recovery), it is recognised that interventions are needed to place the workforce on a more sustainable footing through cross-functionality and skill-shifting, namely with advanced practice roles. However, despite some reports and reviews in the literature, it is unclear how skills development efforts may potentially support workforce transformation for an effective and resilient perioperative care workforce. Thus, drawing causal inferences for policy-making that is both evidence based and rooted in theory is challenging. A scoping review, reported within this protocol, confirmed that 'poly-skilling' and 'advanced practice roles' are critical to this workforce transformation, but the mechanisms through which interventions in this area may work are not understood. A synthesis of evidence is, therefore, proposed in this protocol, to understand what works for whom and under what circumstances, in relation to poly-skilling and advanced practice roles in workforce transformation for sustained healthcare delivery., Methods and Analysis: This protocol sets out the plan to undertake a realist synthesis of the related literature, with theory elicitation (step 1), search for empirical evidence (step 2), selection and appraisal of evidence (step 3) and programme theory refinement (step 4). Exploratory reviews of the literature and key informants' inputs will produce initial hypotheses as to what it is about interventions in poly-skilling and advanced practice roles that work and why. Data from the literature will then be collected based on relevance, rigour and richness. The iterative analysis and synthesis of these data will produce causal links between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. The results will inform a realist evaluation, to be undertaken as part of doctoral research, to better understand the mechanisms that support workforce transformation through poly-skilling and advanced practice roles., Ethics and Dissemination: As a review of previously published literature, the evidence synthesis proposed in this protocol does not require formal ethical approval. Recommended ethical considerations regarding the involvement of key informants, who are not study participants but a consultative group, are presented in this protocol. A formal ethics approval will be sought ahead of the later empirical stage of the research. The results of the realist synthesis proposed in this protocol will be fed back to the local National Health Service organisation and Integrated Care Board and disseminated to the research community via presentations at conferences and a peer-reviewed journal article., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42024512164., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ Group.)

Background: The delivery of effective, high-quality patient care is a complex activity. It demands health and social care professionals collaborate in an effective manner. Research continues to suggest that collaboration between these professionals can be problematic. Interprofessional education (IPE) offers a possible way to improve interprofessional collaboration and patient care., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to separate, profession-specific education interventions; and to assess the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to no education intervention., Search Methods: For this update we searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register, MEDLINE and CINAHL, for the years 2006 to 2011. We also handsearched the Journal of Interprofessional Care (2006 to 2011), reference lists of all included studies, the proceedings of leading IPE conferences, and websites of IPE organisations., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before and after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies of IPE interventions that reported objectively measured or self reported (validated instrument) patient/client or healthcare process outcomes., Data Collection and Analysis: At least two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of potentially relevant studies. For included studies, at least two review authors extracted data and assessed study quality. A meta-analysis of study outcomes was not possible due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures. Consequently, the results are presented in a narrative format., Main Results: This update located nine new studies, which were added to the six studies from our last update in 2008. This review now includes 15 studies (eight RCTs, five CBA and two ITS studies). All of these studies measured the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to no educational intervention. Seven studies indicated that IPE produced positive outcomes in the following areas: diabetes care, emergency department culture and patient satisfaction; collaborative team behaviour and reduction of clinical error rates for emergency department teams; collaborative team behaviour in operating rooms; management of care delivered in cases of domestic violence; and mental health practitioner competencies related to the delivery of patient care. In addition, four of the studies reported mixed outcomes (positive and neutral) and four studies reported that the IPE interventions had no impact on either professional practice or patient care., Authors' Conclusions: This updated review reports on 15 studies that met the inclusion criteria (nine studies from this update and six studies from the 2008 update). Although these studies reported some positive outcomes, due to the small number of studies and the heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures, it is not possible to draw generalisable inferences about the key elements of IPE and its effectiveness. To improve the quality of evidence relating to IPE and patient outcomes or healthcare process outcomes, the following three gaps will need to be filled: first, studies that assess the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to separate, profession-specific interventions; second, RCT, CBA or ITS studies with qualitative strands examining processes relating to the IPE and practice changes; third, cost-benefit analyses.