This paper reports on selected findings from a novel randomised controlled trial (RCT) conducted in mental health settings in Queensland, Australia. Several national and state reports recently revealed the sub-optimal state of Australian mental health service provision which have direct implications for mental health nursing, including the privately experienced cost of working and coping in these settings. Clinical supervision (CS), a structured staff support arrangement, has shown promise as a positive contribution to the clinical practice development agenda and is now found reflected in health policy themes elsewhere in the world. However, CS is underdeveloped in Australia and the empirical evidence base for the informed implementation of CS, per se, has remained elusive. Within the overall context of a RCT design, therefore, and supplemented by other data collection methods, this large and generously funded study attempted to make an incremental contribution to better understanding this demanding substantive domain. Whilst the substantive insights and theoretical propositions reported here were derived from, and may be limited by, a sub-specialty of nursing and a single geographic location, they were earthed in the personal self-reported experience of those directly involved with a clinical practice innovation. They may resonate with counterparts beyond mental health nursing and Queensland, Australia, respectively, therefore, and may assist in both conceptualising and operationalising CS research, education, management, policy and clinical practice development decision making in the future.

An exploratory study, funded by the Department of Health, London and the Scottish Home and Health Department, Edinburgh, was conducted over an 18-month period to provide an informed view on possible assessment tools that could be used to assess the impact of clinical supervision (CS) in nursing and to report on the CS activities in 23 selected sites in England and Scotland. The study not only examined the utility of several standardized research instruments, to be reported separately, but also explored the experience of a small sub-sample of nurses (n = 34) engaged in CS, as supervisors and supervisees. Interviews were undertaken to help better understand some of the issues involved around the domains of structure, process and outcome. Respondents reported an enthusiasm for the opportunity to talk meaningfully to a trusted colleague about their personal circumstances at work. Such opportunities were particularly welcomed by nurses who wished to reflect upon their own practice with patients, especially when dealing with their clinical conditions which were upsetting, or otherwise challenging, and sometimes harrowing. Substantive and methodological areas of interest for future research are suggested.

No abstract