Introduction Studies have found a low availability and appreciation of clinical supervision, especially for healthcare assistants (HCAs). Qualitative research is needed to further understand this. Aims Increase understanding of nurses' and HCAs' experiences of, and access to, clinical supervision. Identify nurses' and HCAs' perceptions of the value and function of clinical supervision. Assess how interventions affect staff's experiences of clinical supervision. Methods In 2013, HCAs and nurses in a secure adolescent service were surveyed about clinical supervision. Forty-nine HCAs and 20 nurses responded. In 2014, interventions to facilitate supervision were introduced. In 2016, the study was repeated. Forty HCAs and 30 nurses responded. Responses were analysed using a mixed methods approach. Results Significantly more HCAs found supervision to be a positive experience in 2016, and both nurses and HCAs reported significantly fewer challenges in accessing supervision. HCAs and nurses understood the value of clinical supervision. Discussion Significant improvements in the experience of clinical supervision were achieved following increased staff awareness, multidisciplinary and group supervision, and recording supervision rates. HCAs and nurses understood the consequences of inadequate supervision. Implications for practice Organizations could adopt the interventions to facilitate clinical supervision. Supervision should not be overlooked for HCAs.
The minimum age of criminal responsibility is set in England and Wales at 10 years of age (Children and Young Persons Act 1963), whilst the effective age of most civil responsibilities is 16. Research allows us to consider the speed of development of key brain structures in terms of decision-making and this in turn aids in discussion of where the minimum age should be set. This article reviews the evolution of the minimum age of criminal responsibility and examines the setting of this age in light of both civil attainment ages and the current scientific understanding of brain development.
Background
Estimates suggest that over a million children per year are deprived of their liberty across the world. Little is known about the types, ethos or distribution of secure beds in which they are detained.
Aim
This study aims to provide quantitative data with background information, to explore similarities and differences across jurisdictions, and to inform critical inquiry into key concepts and practices.
Methods
Data was obtained using an opportunistic sample of affluent countries, derived from an emerging academic/practice network of senior professionals. Depending on jurisdiction, data was already in the public domain or specifically requested. Data requests were related to the nature and size of health, welfare and criminal justice elements of secure beds and recent occupancy. Key professionals working in child secure settings, within jurisdictions, provided commentary on local approaches.
Results
Data was incomplete but allowed for comparisons between 10 jurisdictions. The proportions of the populations of children and young people detained varied by jurisdiction as did their distribution across variations of secure settings. Not all jurisdictions had all three kinds of secure settings. Definitions of secure beds varied depending on the use of relational, procedural or physical security.
Conclusion
Findings are tentative but suggestion solely considering numerical descriptions of children's detention is misleading; our study highlights ways in which comparative studies may be improved. Within reported jurisdictions, the framework of health, welfare and justice was meaningful but this may not hold true with a wider international application of this method. Open interrogation of this data would be enhanced by the inclusion of children's perspectives.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.