Factors influencing the effectiveness of clinical supervision

Abstract

Factors influencing the effectiveness of clinical supervisionClinical supervision is widely accepted as an essential prerequisite for high quality nursing care. This paper reports findings from a study that aims to identify the factors that may influence the effectiveness of clinical supervision for community mental health nurses (CMHNs) in Wales, UK. Two hundred and sixty (32%) CMHNs from an estimated total population of 817 completed the Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale (MCCS) and a demographic questionnaire. The MCCS is a 36-item questionnaire measuring the quality and effectiveness of the supervision received. Three-quarters of CMHNs reported having participated in six or more sessions of supervision in their current posts. Clinical supervision was more positively evaluated where sessions lasted for over one hour, and took place on at least a once-monthly basis. Perceived quality of supervision was also higher for those nurses who had chosen their supervisors, and where sessions took place away from the workplace. These findings have important implications for the organization and delivery of mental health nursing services.

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

“…Similarly, it was also uncommon to offer supervision training simultaneously to both supervisees and supervisors, although this is recommended best practice (Kavanagh et al, 2008). Likewise, supervisees were seldom provided with choice of supervisor, despite being regarded as best practice (Edwards et al, 2005). Having one overall clinical supervision framework, with principles based on best evidence, provided an ideal opportunity to identify supervision outcomes and examine any differences in application and outcomes between the several allied health professions employed in the service.…”

“…Other authors suggest that six sessions are required prior to data collection to measure effectiveness (Edwards et al, 2005). In an …”

“…Authors have highlighted several contextual variables thought to be related to positive supervision outcomes, including the length of supervision session (Edwards et al, 2005), choice of supervisor (Dawson et al, 2013b;Edwards et al, 2005), place of supervision (Hyrkas, 2005), supervision training (Cutcliffe, 2011;Kavanagh et al, 2008), supervision and support for supervisors (Butterworth et al, 2008), structured supervision processes (Ayers et al, 2014;Kuipers, Pager, Bell, Hall, & Kendall, 2013), and being located in an organisation with a culture that values and supports supervision (Butterworth et al, 2008;Winstanley & White, 2003). It is only in recent times that research has examined the association between supervision effectiveness and the structures and context within which supervision takes place.…”

“…Also guided by best practice, the organisation had provided in-house training for supervisees and supervisors (Bradley & Hojer, 2009;Dawson et al, 2013b) and facilitated supervisees' choice of supervisor (Dawson et al, 2012;Edwards et al, 2005). Leading up to the service's implementation of clinical supervision for allied health, several presentations were provided at all staff forums to raise awareness about the introduction of the practice.…”

“…In addition, participants' most frequently reported supervision session duration was 15 to 30 minutes, which was highlighted by the researchers as possibly being an inadequate allocation of time. Others suggest that a minimum session time of 60 minutes is required in order to obtain measurable benefit (Edwards et al, 2005;Watkins, 2011). Therefore the findings from Snowden and colleagues' study (2015) tell us little about the outcomes we could expect from well implemented supervision.…”