Clinical supervision in the alcohol and other drugs field: an imperative or an option?

Abstract

There is a growing interest in Clinical Supervision (CS) as a central workforce development (WFD) strategy. This paper provides a definition of and rationale for CS, characterises its various forms, identifies selection and training issues, and advises on policy and implementation issues central to redressing shortcomings in supervision practice within the alcohol and other drugs (AOD) field. Relevant selective literature is reviewed. Key conceptual issues were identified, and strategies developed to address implementation barriers and facilitate relevant policy. There is a common conceptual confusion between administrative supervision and CS. Clarification of the role, function and implementation of CS is required. Priority issues for the AOD field include: enhancing belief in CS; ensuring adequate resource allocation; developing evaluation protocols; and addressing specific arrangements under which supervision should occur. CS has been underutilised to date but holds considerable potential as a WFD strategy. It is fundamental to workers' professional development, can contribute to worker satisfaction and retention, and may improve client outcomes. Critical next steps are to establish the generalisability to the AOD field of the benefits observed from CS in other disciplines, and evaluate longer-term gains of CS programs.

The health and well-being of Indigenous drug and alcohol workers: Results from a national Australian survey

“…This finding may be further compounded in Indigenous workplaces where the workplace culture is less familiar with supervision . Previous research has demonstrated the importance of clinical supervision in minimising emotional exhaustion and turnover in AOD workers (Knudsen et al, 2008;Roche et al, 2007).…”

“…Non-Indigenous workers reported experiencing pressure from different types of clients, particularly manipulative, poly-drug using, and demanding clients. Greater training and support in the form of clinical supervision (Knudsen, Ducharme, & Roman, 2008;Roche, Todd, & O'Connor, 2007;Health Workforce Australia, 2010) may help workers manage pressures they face from difficult clients.…”

Clinical supervision, burnout and intent to leave: an Australian mixed methods study of community-based allied health professionals

“…For example, some studies show positive links between clinical supervision and professional development (Butterworth, Bell, Jackson, & Pajnkihar, 2008;Martino, Ball, Nich, Frankforter, & Carroll, 2008;Roche, Todd, & O'Connor, 2007), as well as decreased intent to leave and decreased burnout of workers (Begat & Severinsson, 2006;Hyrkas, Appelqvist-Schmidlechner, & Haataja, 2006). However findings from clinical supervision studies have been mixed, with some reports that supervisees have perceived clinical supervision to be ineffective for their practice (e.g.…”

“…High quality clinical supervision has been linked to positive benefits for clinicians, clients and organisations (Edwards et al, 2006;Roche et al, 2007). Hence, within Australia there has been a national drive to implement clinical supervision across public health services (Health Workforce Australia, 2010).…”

“…Ellis, 2010;Snowdon, Millard, & Taylor, 2015). Methodological problems have impeded attempts to clarify the outcomes of clinical supervision (Bogo & McKnight, 2006;Roche et al, 2007) or to determine the characteristics of clinical supervision that are linked to effectiveness (Carpenter et al, 2013). In addition, as profession-specific differences are evident in clinical supervision practice (Dawson, Phillips, & Leggat, 2012), some have questioned whether a common supervision framework will be appropriate for a diverse range of allied health professionals (Kumar, Osborne, & Lehmann, 2015).…”