Integrative literature review identifies effective CPD programmes for enhancing ICU team interprofessional competencies, indicating their role in improving patient care.
Professionals in intensive care units (ICU) care for patients facing life-threatening situations; ensuring patient safety and high-quality care for critically ill patients requires ICU teams to work together in interprofessional teams that rely on effective interprofessional skills. This chapter presents the findings of the integrative literature review guided by the question: What is available in the literature on continuous professional development programmes aimed at enhancing the interprofessional competencies of ICU teams? An integrative literature review outlined by Whittemore and Knafl (2005) was performed. Four electronic databases, namely Cochrane Library, CINAHL, ScienceDirect, and PubMed, were searched to find relevant articles published articles, using the search terms “continuous professional development programmes”, “interprofessional competencies”, “interprofessional collaborative practices”, and “intensive care teams”. The retrieved articles underwent rigorous screening and quality appraisal based on the research inclusion criteria for the review, resulting in 19 peer-reviewed articles that qualified for thematic analysis. The review shows that continuous professional development (CPD) programmes that improve the interprofessional competencies of ICU teams are designed based on the needs and clinical gaps identified in the ICU through conducting situational analyses. The situational analysis guides the learning outcomes, the programme’s teaching strategies, learning activities, and how the competence and success of the programme are to be evaluated. Various multidimensional assessment tools and approaches, such as reflective team discussions, are recommended. Additionally, when correctly implemented, the CPD programme supports patient safety and fosters a positive psychological environment, which helps improve team cohesion and job satisfaction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
al. et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: