The more recent Cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled trials of IPC interventions shows that the situation has not changed. None of the studies investigated the cost of IPC. Of these 25, 22 focused on patient experience of care alone and only 3 examined patient outcomes. In a systematic review of interprofessional collaborative practices, only 25 or 18.8% of all the 133 studies reviewed reported one or two healthcare outcomes of the Triple Aim. Notwithstanding IPC’s purported goal to improve patient care, IPC literature does not commonly report on its contribution to achieving the goals of healthcare, namely population health, patient experience, and cost of care, commonly known as Triple Aim. The study is set in a Singapore-based national and regional center that takes care of patients with neurological issues. Healthcare costs will be calculated using the time-driven activity-based costing methodology.

A multimethod approach is proposed whereby patient outcomes are measured using quantitative methods, and patient experience and provider well-being are assessed using qualitative methods.

To address the gaps, this paper describes a protocol which uses as a framework the Quadruple Aim which examines the ROI of IPC using four dimensions: patient outcomes, patient experience, provider well-being, and cost of care. The lack of proof for the ROI of IPC is likely due to a lack of a unifying conceptual framework and the over-reliance on the single-method study design. Without return on investment (ROI) evidence, healthcare leaders cannot justifiably throw their weight behind IPC, and the institutional push for healthcare manpower reforms crucial for facilitating IPC will remain variable and fragmentary. Despite decades of research on the impact of interprofessional collaboration (IPC), we still lack definitive proof that team-based care can lead to a tangible effect on healthcare outcomes.

Behind the Lens by Marita A. Hansen