Chapter reports perceptions of ICU teams on CPD programmes aiming to enhance interprofessional competencies, emphasizing collaborative practices.
Poor interprofessional collaborative practices in the intensive care units (ICUs) due to a lack of interprofessional collaborative competencies could lead to litigation cases. Continuous professional development (CPD) programmes are critical for strengthening the interprofessional collaborative competencies needed for safe, high-quality care in ICU. This chapter reports on the perception of ICU teams regarding the nature of a CPD programme to enhance the interprofessional collaborative competencies of ICU teams in the North-West Province (NWP), South Africa. Data were collected using 12 semi-structured focus groups with ICU teams across two public and two private hospitals in two districts of the NWP. The data were then thematically analysed and clustered around four themes with sub-themes. The findings underscore the importance of identifying contextual factors contributing to the lack of interprofessional collaboration among ICU teams. Factors include power dynamics and insufficient interprofessional communication stemming from role ambiguity. Consequently, learning outcomes should address the indicated factors to promote interprofessional collaborative practices among ICU teams. Thus, ICU teams should be made aware of the significance of shared leadership and collective decision-making. The study further advocates for the inclusion of interactive teaching and learning modalities supported by technology to maintain sustainability. Furthermore, the programme should be concise and repetitive to consolidate the acquired interprofessional competencies, facilitated by experienced ICU stakeholders. A neutral facilitator is advised to prevent power imbalances. Interprofessional competencies should be assessed in real time using checklists and surveys. The programme’s effectiveness should be evaluated over time through quality improvement measures.
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: