Interprofessional collaboration in trauma care in South Asia: A scoping review of barriers, interventions, and implications for patient and system outcomes.
Injury · 2026-06-13 · Scoping review
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Trauma is a leading global cause of preventable morbidity and mortality, with South Asia bearing a disproportionate burden due to fragmented trauma systems and resource limitations. Effective trauma care depends on coordinated personnel, infrastructure, clinical processes, and interprofessional collaboration (IPC). OBJECTIVE: To map existing evidence on barriers to adult trauma care delivery in South Asia and to examine how IPC is implemented through educational, practice-based, and organisational interventions. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted following the Arksey and O'Malley framework and reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Four electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science) and Google Scholar were searched for English-language studies published between 2005 and 2025. Eligible studies examined IPC, teamwork, or system-level challenges in adult trauma care across civilian healthcare settings. Data were charted and reported descriptively with multiple categories across system, provider, and patient levels. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included from South Asia, with most evidence originating from India, highlighting important regional research disparities. Most were conducted in tertiary emergency departments or trauma centres and employed observational or quasi-experimental designs. Interventions were classified as IP education (n = 10), IP practice (n = 8), and IP organisation (n = 1); two studies provided contextual system analyses without direct interventions. Educational and practice-based interventions consistently improved provider knowledge, confidence, communication, and process reliability. However, organisational-level interventions were scarce, and patient-level outcomes such as mortality and functional recovery were infrequently reported limiting assessment of the true clinical effectiveness of IPC interventions. Recurrent barriers included underdeveloped prehospital systems, inconsistent trauma team activation, protocol variability, workforce turnover, and limited trauma registry coverage. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base on IPC in South Asia trauma care is dominated by education and practice-level interventions, with limited evaluation of system-level redesign. While IPC interventions improve teamwork and care processes, their impact on patient outcomes remains inadequately measured. Sustainable progress will require trauma registries, standardized protocols, governance reform, and multicountry patient-outcome-driven research. Policymakers should prioritize integrated trauma governance, registry systems, and regional quality assurance to translate IPC gains into measurable improvements in trauma mortality, morbidity, and recovery.