Perceived interprofessional collaboration among primary care staff in a public polyclinic cluster in Singapore: relational strengths, domain patterns and associations with prior IPC training

Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is increasingly important in primary care as health systems respond to population ageing, multimorbidity and the shift toward preventive, team-based care. Although the Collaborative Practice Assessment Tool (CPAT) has evidence supporting selected measurement properties in Singapore, limited evidence describes how IPC is perceived within high-volume public primary care settings such as polyclinics. This study aimed to assess perceived IPC among staff involved in patient care processes within NHG Polyclinics, one public polyclinic cluster in Singapore, and to examine professional and exposure-related factors associated with stronger perceived collaboration. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted from April to May 2026 among staff involved in patient care processes across NHG Polyclinics in Singapore. Participants completed the CPAT, which assesses collaboration across eight domains. CPAT total and domain scores were summarised descriptively, internal consistency was assessed, and multivariable regression models examined factors associated with CPAT scores. Among 226 respondents from diverse professional groups, the mean CPAT total score was 44.49 out of 56, indicating generally favourable staff-reported perceptions of collaboration. The highest-scoring domains were General Relationships, Mission, Meaningful Purpose and Goals, and Patient Involvement. Relatively lower scores were observed in Role Responsibilities and Autonomy, while patterns in the Decision-making and Conflict Management domain should be interpreted cautiously because of low internal consistency. Prior formal IPC training was the only factor independently associated with higher CPAT total score in the adjusted model; exploratory domain-level associations were most evident in relational, communication and coordination domains. Among respondents from NHG Polyclinics, perceived IPC was generally favourable, particularly in shared purpose, working relationships and patient-centred orientation. Relatively lower scores in role responsibilities/autonomy and exploratory patterns within the less reliable decision-making/conflict domain identify areas for further investigation. Associations with prior IPC training should be interpreted cautiously because of the cross-sectional design. Potential implications include further evaluation of role clarification, shared decision-making processes, conflict-resolution mechanisms and protected opportunities for interprofessional communication within routine workflows.