-
Australian health review: a publication of the Australian Hospital Association 03/2013; · 0.55 Impact Factor
-
Clinical Governance An International Journal 01/2013; 18(2):139.
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: It is recommended that allied health professionals (AHPs) participate in regular clinical supervision (CS). However, AHP understanding of CS processes and outcomes is unclear. This systematic review reports the evidence for CS for AHPs and other health professionals.
Five databases and reference lists of included articles were searched. Papers included described CS definitions, processes and outcomes of CS. Due to the paucity of CS research for AHPs, nursing and medical disciplines were included. Two reviewers critically appraised the 33 included papers.
The majority of papers were exploratory. Definitions and processes for CS were not clearly identified. Outcomes of CS included the relationships between CS and job satisfaction and workplace stress. Proctor's model and the Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale were the most common framework and evaluation approach. Contradictory positions of which components of Proctor's model should be included in CS were reported. Methodological flaws and a lack of comparative studies were common.
Although not extensively supported by evidence, CS was generally held to be a positive experience and tends to be provided without a clear definition or model, using new or untested tools. Further research to evaluate CS for AHPs, is needed.
Journal of allied health 01/2013; 42(2):65-73.
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Clinical supervision (CS) for health professionals supports quality clinical practice. This study explored current CS effectiveness for allied health professionals (AHPs) at a regional health service from a supervisee perspective and identified improvements.
The Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale (MCSS) was completed by 30 supervisees to determine their perceptions of CS effectiveness.
Supervision sessions typically occurred monthly (56.7%) and were one-to-one (86.2%). The mean total MCSS score was 142.83 (s.d. 15.73), greater than the reported threshold score of 136 for effective CS. The mean subscale scores of 'trust/rapport' and 'improved care/skills' were high, in contrast to the mean subscale scores for 'finding time' and 'personal issues', which were significantly lower than the other subscales (P<0.001). Low scores for 'finding time' and 'personal issues' subscales may be associated with emotional exhaustion and depersonalisation.
In this first study evaluating CS for AHPs using the MCSS, CS was reported as being valued and important. However, there is a need for improvement in addressing personal issues that affect work performance and for finding time for CS. As effective CS is an important component of clinical governance by supporting safe and effective healthcare provision, it is vital that CS processes are improved.
Australian health review: a publication of the Australian Hospital Association 03/2012; 36(1):92-7. · 0.55 Impact Factor
