Supervisors’ experience of delivering individual clinical supervision to qualified therapists: a meta-ethnographic synthesis

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to systematically identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative literature exploring the experience, both positive and negative, of clinical supervision from the supervisor’s perspective. Design/methodology/approach A systematic search of three databases, grey literature, reference lists and citations was conducted. Six articles met the inclusion criteria and their quality was critically appraised by using a modified version of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Data extracted from the articles were synthesised using meta-ethnography. Findings Four key themes were identified: experiencing difficulties in clinical supervision, responsibility, similarities to therapy and capabilities as a supervisor. These demonstrated that the role of a supervisor has the potential to be both beneficial and harmful to personal and professional development. Research limitations/implications The quality of the studies was variable. Further research is required to explore how supervisors manage difficult experiences to ensure personal development and growth. Practical implications Clinical implications include the need for employers to consider the additional pressure associated with providing clinical supervision and to ensure that appropriate support is available. Results complement previous research on the bi-directionality of parallel process in clinical supervision. Originality/value This review presents an original synthesis of the supervisor’s experience of delivering clinical supervision to qualified therapists. This is achieved by utilising a systematic methodology and appraising the quality of the studies included. The review highlights how the effects of clinical supervision are not limited to the supervisee, but also experienced by the supervisor. The competing demands and responsibilities associated with clinical supervision impact upon the supervisor’s experience, both positively and negatively. When beneficial, delivering clinical supervision can lead to personal and professional growth in addition to the acquisition of new skills.

What do clinical supervision research reviews tell us? Surveying the last 25 years

“…Study data about giving and receiving supervision also accentuated this: supervision, because of its multifaceted nature, inherent power imbalance and competing demands, can be highly challenging and have significant personal and professional impacts, positive and negative, on both supervisor and supervisee, and both parties are advised to remain mindful of those realities (Forshaw et al, ; Wilson et al, ).…”

“…Moreover, because a spike in supervision research reviews has occurred across these last five years alone (e.g. Alfonsson, Parling, Spännargård, Andersson, & Lundgren, ; Barrett, Gonsalvez, & Shires, ; Forshaw, Sabin‐Farrell, & Schröder, ; Kühne, Maas, Wiesenthal, & Weck, ; Newman, Simon, & Swerdlik, ), the time for such a survey would seem especially apropos.…”

“…The reviews were varied in focus and can be roughly grouped as follows: general reviews, where 'the whole' of supervision was examined (Bogo & McKnight, 2006;Borders, 2006;Buus & Gonge, 2009;Newman et al, 2019;O'Donoghue & Tsui, 2015;Tsui, 1997); reviews primarily focused on supervision effects on supervisees and/or clients (Alfonsson et al, 2018;Carpenter et al, 2013;Freitas, 2002;Kühne et al, 2019;Reiser & Milne, 2014;Watkins, 2011;Wheeler & Richards, 2007); single reviews about evidencebased practice (Barrett et al, 2019), supervision models (Simpson-Southward, Waller, & Hardy, 2017), the supervisee's experience of receiving supervision (Wilson, Davies, & Weatherhead, 2016) and the supervisor's experience of providing supervision (Forshaw et al, 2019); and reviews focused on methodology and rigour (Ellis et al, 2008;Ellis & Ladany, 1997;Ellis et al, 1996).…”

“…Virtually all reviews focused exclusively on quantitative studies. However, two reviews were exclusively qualitative in nature (Forshaw et al, 2019;Wilson et al, 2016), and one was a content analysis (Simpson-Southward et al, 2017).…”

Supervision from a Lacanian Perspective Considered Closely: A Qualitative Study

“…It seems supervisors shouldn't impose certain interventions, nor a therapeutic frame. The problem with power imbalances (Forshaw, Sabin-Farrell & Schröder, 2019), deriving from evaluative roles, influencing the therapeutic relationship seemed to be absent in our study. This shouldn't surprise us, as the evaluative aspect of supervision seems generally absent in Lacanian institutes, as Lacan strongly opposed this (Moncayo, 2006).…”