This study evaluates the impact of a structured interprofessional training program on daily collaboration within the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit (CICU/UTIC) at the University Hospital of Parma. In high-intensity clinical settings, rapid and accurate coordination between physicians, nurses, and healthcare assistants is vital. Ineffective teamwork often leads to communication breakdowns, potentially compromising patient safety and care quality. This project investigates whether an interactive, scenario-based educational program can strengthen role clarity, communication, and shared decision-making. The study seeks to determine if an active-learning program using interactive branching scenarios improves interprofessional collaboration more effectively than traditional methods. The researchers hypothesize that this simulation-based approach will significantly enhance professional outcomes, including self-efficacy, shared decision-making, and commitment to both the team and the profession. The study utilizes a convenience sample (approx. 5 physicians, 30 nurses, 8 healthcare assistants, and 10 students). Eligible participants include staff and students currently or recently active in the Parma CICU who provide informed consent. The intervention is delivered via a Moodle-based platform featuring case-based simulations. These scenarios replicate complex clinical pathways, such as: Cath-lab and Electrophysiology procedures. Heart failure management. TAVI (Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) preparation. As participants navigate these scenarios, they must make critical decisions and receive immediate feedback designed to reinforce collaborative best practices. Data Collection and Timeline Data is gathered at three intervals: T0 (Baseline), T1 (Post-training), and T2 (6-month follow-up). Validated questionnaires measure: Attitudes toward physician-nurse collaboration. Perceived daily collaboration and decision-making satisfaction. Professional commitment and work-related self-efficacy. The training phase spans six months, with a subsequent six-month follow-up, totaling a 24-month project duration. Ethics and Privacy Risks are minimal, primarily involving the time required for participation. The primary benefit is the development of skills that foster safer, more coordinated patient care. Privacy is strictly maintained through pseudo-anonymization, with data access restricted to the research team.
Sex
ALL
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.
Name of the measurement: Change from Baseline in Mean Attitudes Toward Physician-Nurse Interprofessional Collaboration Score at 6 Months
Timeframe: Baseline (T0), immediately post-training (T1: approximately 1 month after baseline), and at 6-month follow-up (T2: 6 months after the intervention).
Name of the measurement: Change from Baseline in Mean Perceived Interprofessional Collaboration Score at 6 Months as Assessed by the Nurse-Physician Collaboration Scale (NPCS)
Timeframe: T0 (Baseline): Before the start of the training intervention. T1 (Post-intervention): Immediately following the completion of the 6-month training program. T2 (Follow-up): Six months after the conclusion of the training to evaluate the sustainability
Name of the measurement:Change from Baseline in Mean Collaboration and Satisfaction with Care Decisions (CSACD) Score at 6 Months. Measurement tool: Collaboration and Satisfaction with Care Decisions (CSACD) Scale
Timeframe: T0: Baseline (before the training intervention). T1: Post-intervention (immediately following the 6-month training period). T2: Long-term follow-up (6 months after completing the training).
Name of the measurement: Change from Baseline in Mean Professional and Team Commitment Scores at 6 Months as Assessed by the Professional and Team Commitment Questionnaire. Tool measurement: Professional and Team Commitment Questionnaire
Timeframe: T0: Baseline (prior to the training intervention). T1: Post-intervention (immediately following the 6-month training period). T2: Follow-up (6 months after the completion of the training).
Name of the measurement: Change from Baseline in Mean Work-related Self-Efficacy Score at 6 Months as Assessed by the Personal Accomplishment Subscale of the MBI Measurement tool: Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) - Personal Accomplishment Subscale
Timeframe: Baseline (T0), immediately post-training (T1: ~1 month), and 6-month follow-up (T2).