Interprofessional Collaboration for Enhancing Patient Safety and Healthcare Quality: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background: Clinical competence of single professionals is not sufficient to ensure safe care; effective modes of communication, decision-making, and allocation of responsibility among professional groups are equally important. This is why concepts of interprofessional collaboration (IPC) have become so widely promoted; they address fragmentation and improve service quality. Objective: The researchers wanted to evaluate the influence of IPC on patient safety and healthcare quality. They explored different areas, including communication, handover, interdisciplinary rounds, medication safety, personnel learning, patient-reported outcomes, and organizational processes. Methods: To find relevant scholarly articles, research was conducted in the PubMed database, with additional publications suggested by the World Health Organization. The search strategy consisted of 4 queries, which were applied on 10 August 2026. The initial list of 55 papers was reduced by 6 obviously irrelevant results, leaving 49 for screening. Finally, 20 articles were included in the evidence analysis. Since the heterogeneity of interventions did not allow quantitative aggregation, the findings were synthesized narratively based on the method of design-sensitive quality assessment. Results: The most consistent findings across studies demonstrated the benefit of IPC interventions for immediate safety-critical processes. These include enhanced information exchange, team working, clinical decision-making, handovers, medication reviews, and safety culture. Communication tools such as SBAR and interdisciplinary rounds proved to be effective context-specific processes for fostering collaboration. The involvement of pharmacists and interprofessional education were also associated with safety outcomes. By contrast, no agreement was found on the effect of IPC on mortality and length of hospital stays. The main barriers to effective interprofessional interaction were identified as professional hierarchy, ambiguities in the allocation of responsibilities, high workload, lack of information technology, inadequate leadership support, and lack of psychological safety. Conclusion: To achieve the desired level of collaboration, clinicians must recognize the role of IPC in general professional safety and implement it through specific processes: standardized communication, clear assignment of roles, leadership support, and trust-building measures. This will allow them to optimize safety-critical procedures and contribute to institutional improvement. The evidence therefore supports the need for embedding IPC in the daily practice of clinicians at the front line.