How do we assess the quality of group supervision? Developing a coding framework

Abstract

How do we assess the quality of group supervision? Developing a coding framework, Children and Youth Services Review, https://doi.Abstract The importance of supervision for social work practice is one of the most widely accepted tenets of the profession. Yet, surprisingly little is known about what happens in supervision, making it difficult to unravel what it is about supervision that makes a difference to social work practice. This paper describes the development of a framework for assessing the quality of group supervision. It focuses on one subcategory of group supervision -systemic group supervision -and draws a wider evaluation of systemic social work practice in the UK. It is based on 29 observations of "live" of supervision to illustrate differences in quality of supervisory practice. The process of developing the coding framework was cyclical, and ultimately resulted in a three-point ordinal grouping for assessing systemic supervisory practice. Analysis of observational data assessed group systemic supervision as follows: 8 as non-systemic (28%); 12 (41%) as demonstrating some incorporation of systemic ideas into interactions, described as "green shoots" (or showing encouraging signs of development but not yet reached its full potential); and 9 (31%) supervision sessions demonstrating a full incorporation of systemic concepts and practice. What marked "systemic" sessions from "green shoots" supervision was the move from hypothesis generation about family relations and risk to children to purposeful, actionable conversations with families: the move from reflection to action. This paper supports a small but growing body of evidence about the fundamental characteristics of successful or effective supervision within children and families social work.

“Asking the ‘dumb’ questions”.

“…between social workers, children and families Bostock, Patrizo, Godfrey, Munro, et al, 2019) Supervision, particularly statutory child protection social work, is buffeted between professional and organisational accountabilities informed by a context of risk management and outcome delivery (Davys & Beddoe, 2020;Wilkins et al, 2017). For some time, international literature has impressed upon us the need to improve child-protection social work services and provide space for reflection (Beddoe et al, 2021).…”

“…and Bostock, Patrizo, Godfrey, Munro & Forrester, 2019) that explore practitioner work alongside effective practice with service users, are central to an Aotearoa New Zealand research agenda which builds towards better children and whānau, aiga (family) outcomes. Despite the limitations outlined, this study contributes towards the evidence base of supervision literature in social work practice in Aotearoa New Zealand, specifically supervision practices in OT.…”

Developing a programme theory for the Systemic Practice Model in children's social care: Key informants' perspectives

“…In other UK agencies, these units have been replaced by larger systemic teams consisting of more than one case‐holding social worker and occasionally without the clinician (Bostock et al, 2017). According to Bostock, Patrizo, Godfrey, Munro, and Forrester (2019b), the following features characterize a systemic case discussion: (1) patterns of family relationships and narratives are actively explored; (2) family relationships are set in the wider social context; (3) a child and family focus is present during the conversation; (4) there is clarity about the potential risks to the child (ren); (5) discussion is curious and reflective; (6) different hypotheses are generated and/or evidence presented that challenge established theories about the family; (7) hypotheses are developed into clear and actionable conversations with the families; and (8) discussion is collaborative and involves all group members.…”

“…In other UK agencies, these units have been replaced by larger systemic teams consisting of more than one case-holding social worker and occasionally without the clinician (Bostock et al, 2017). According to Bostock, Patrizo, Godfrey, Munro, and Forrester (2019b) The most important similarities between RSW and the SPM include practitioner training in the systemic approach, that is, seeing the family as a system and carrying out interventions aimed at changing the system's functioning (Forrester et al, 2013), the inclusion of a clinician in the team, and the use of systemic tools and methods with families and in weekly meetings. During its initial implementation, new elements were incorporated into the SPM, such as inviting the family to participate in the team meeting.…”

Social work supervision in child and family services: Developing a working theory of how and why it works

“…In a number of local authorities in England, there has clearly been much thought given to the purpose of supervision and thriving cultures of reflective and supportive approaches have been and are being developed (Lees, 2017). Bostock's work has been instrumental in helping to identify key components in the relationship between certain forms of group systemic supervision and the practice skills demonstrated by workers (Bostock, Forrester, Patrizo, Godfrey, & Zonouzi, 2017;Bostock, Patrizo, Godfrey, Munro, & Forrester, 2019). Davys, May, Burns, and O'Connell (2017) have also looked at how supervision is evaluated in practice by supervisors and supervisees in Aotearoa New Zealand.…”