A systematic review of evidence relating to clinical supervision for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals

Pollock, Alex; Campbell, Pauline; Deery, Ruth; Fleming, Mick; Rankin, Jean; Sloan, Graham; Cheyne, Helen

doi:10.1111/jan.13253

Cited by 57 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While I acknowledge that poorly designed studies can be well reviewed/reported and well‐designed studies can be poorly reviewed/reported, these findings support those from other careful review studies (see, e.g. Pollock et al., ).…”

supporting

confidence: 65%

Measuring Clinical Supervision; how beneficial is yours and how do you know?

White

2018

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 65%

Measuring Clinical Supervision; how beneficial is yours and how do you know?

White

2018

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We devised a method for judging the comprehensiveness of the description of the method or approach to involvement, given that there are no standardised tools for such a task. Criteria for categorising the comprehensiveness of the description provided within papers were developed, adapted from Pollock [ 28 ]. Initially, two reviewers (AP, CS) assigned these criteria independently for a random sample of 20% of papers identified from step 1 of searching; this was 42 of 210 papers.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThere is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve stakeholders (meaning patients, the public, health professionals and others) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this. We aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews.MethodsWe carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronic databases (2010–2016), using a stepwise searching approach, supplemented with hand searching. Two authors independently screened and discussed the first 500 abstracts and, after clarifying selection criteria, screened a further 500. Agreement on screening decisions was 97%, so screening was done by one reviewer only. Pre-planned data extraction was completed, and the comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement judged. Additional data extraction was completed for papers judged to have most comprehensive descriptions. Three stakeholder representatives were co-authors for this systematic review.ResultsWe included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers. Thirty-two percent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Ten percent (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Sixty-nine percent (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. Eighty-one percent (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding ≤ 4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 h to ½ day. Nineteen percent (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving three electronic rounds. Details of ethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid to people involved in 8/32 systematic reviews.Discussion/conclusionWe identified a relatively large number (291) of papers reporting stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papers judged to provide the best descriptions of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews provide examples of different ways in which stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. These examples arguably currently provide the best available information to inform and guide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement within future systematic reviews. This evidence has been used to develop online learning resources.Systematic review registrationThe protocol for this systematic review was published on 21 April 2017. Publication reference: Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Watts C, Morley R: Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects. Research Involvement and Engagement 2017, 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4.Electronic supplement...

show abstract

“…small group discussions) and/or experiential learning (e.g. role-play, feedback) (Spence et al 2001 ; Hoge et al 2011 ; Pollock et al 2017 ). The duration of supervision training ranges from one-off, short-term interventions (such as a 2-day workshop) to extended-duration interventions over many months that are punctuated by mini-interventions such as monthly supervision sessions (Spence et al 2001 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supervision training in healthcare: a realist synthesis

Rees

Lee

Huang

et al. 2019

Adv in Health Sci Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Supervision matters: it serves educational, supportive and management functions. Despite a plethora of evidence on the effectiveness of supervision, scant evidence for the impact of supervision training exists. While three previous literature reviews have begun to examine the effectiveness of supervision training, they fail to explore the extent to which supervision training works, for whom, and why. We adopted a realist approach to answer the question: to what extent do supervision training interventions work (or not), for whom and in what circumstances, and why? We conducted a team-based realist synthesis of the supervision training literature focusing on Pawson’s five stages: (1) clarifying the scope; (2) determining the search strategy; (3) study selection; (4) data extraction; and (5) data synthesis. We extracted contexts (C), mechanisms (M) and outcomes (O) and CMO configurations from 29 outputs including short (n = 19) and extended-duration (n = 10) supervision training interventions. Irrespective of duration, interventions including mixed pedagogies involving active and/or experiential learning, social learning and protected time served as mechanisms triggering multiple positive supervisor outcomes. Short-duration interventions also led to positive outcomes through mechanisms such as supervisor characteristics, whereas facilitator characteristics was a key mechanism triggering positive and negative outcomes for extended-duration interventions. Disciplinary and organisational contexts were not especially influential. While our realist synthesis builds on previous non-realist literature reviews, our findings extend previous work considerably. Our realist synthesis presents a broader array of outcomes and mechanisms than have been previously identified, and provides novel insights into the causal pathways in which short and extended-duration supervision training interventions produce their effects. Future realist evaluation should explore further any differences between short and extended-duration interventions. Educators are encouraged to prioritize mixed pedagogies, social learning and protected time to maximize the positive supervisor outcomes from training.

show abstract

A systematic review of evidence relating to clinical supervision for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals

Abstract: Despite insufficient evidence to directly inform the selection and implementation of a framework, the limited available evidence can inform the design of a new model of clinical supervision for UK-based midwives.

Cited by 57 publications

References 38 publications

Measuring Clinical Supervision; how beneficial is yours and how do you know?

Measuring Clinical Supervision; how beneficial is yours and how do you know?

Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review

Supervision training in healthcare: a realist synthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About