Clinical supervision for allied health staff: necessary but not sufficient

Leggat, Sandra G.; Phillips, Bev; Pearce, Philippa; Dawson, Margaret; Schulz, Debbie; Smith, Jenni S

doi:10.1071/ah15080

Cited by 6 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ensuring that guidelines acknowledge direct models of supervision, involving observation of supervisees’ clinical practice, might have a positive effect on patient safety and care [44, 45]. Some allied health professionals do not believe that observation of supervisees’ clinical practice is an aspect of clinical supervision [46]. This is despite the role of clinical supervision as a form of clinical governance [1], and evidence showing an association between direct models of supervision and improved patient safety and care [44, 45].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is despite the role of clinical supervision as a form of clinical governance [1], and evidence showing an association between direct models of supervision and improved patient safety and care [44, 45]. Clear organisational guidelines that outline the role of clinical supervision in ensuring high quality patient care may positively influence the acceptability and practice of the direct models of clinical supervision by all allied health professionals, and enhance patient care [46].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effective clinical supervision of allied health professionals: a mixed methods study

Snowdon

Sargent

Williams

et al. 2019

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundClinical supervision is recommended for allied health professionals for the purpose of supporting them in their professional role, continued professional development and ensuring patient safety and high quality care. The aim of this mixed methods study was to explore allied health professionals’ perceptions about the aspects of clinical supervision that can facilitate effective clinical supervision.MethodsIndividual semi-structured interviews were conducted on a purposive sample of 38 allied health professionals working in a metropolitan public hospital. Qualitative analysis was completed using an interpretive description approach. To enable triangulation of qualitative data, a quantitative descriptive survey of clinical supervision effectiveness was also conducted using the Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale (MCSS-26).ResultsThree main themes emerged from qualitative analysis: Allied health professionals reported that clinical supervision was most effective when their professional development was the focus of clinical supervision; the supervisor possessed the skills and attributes required to facilitate a constructive supervisory relationship; and the organisation provided an environment that facilitated this relationship together with their own professional development. Three subthemes also emerged within each of the main themes: the importance of the supervisory relationship; prioritisation of clinical supervision relative to other professional duties; and flexibility of supervision models, processes and approaches to clinical supervision. The mean MCSS-26 score was 79.2 (95%CI 73.7 to 84.3) with scores ranging from 44 to 100. MCSS-26 results converged with the qualitative findings with participants reporting an overall positive experience with clinical supervision.ConclusionsThe factors identified by allied health professionals that influenced the effectiveness of their clinical supervision were mostly consistent among the professions. However, allied health professionals reported using models of clinical supervision that best suited their profession’s role and learning style. This highlighted the need for flexible approaches to allied health clinical supervision that should be reflected in clinical supervision policies and guidelines. Many of the identified factors that influence the effectiveness of clinical supervision of allied health professionals can be influenced by health organisations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effective clinical supervision of allied health professionals: a mixed methods study

Snowdon

Sargent

Williams

et al. 2019

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two studies [ 31 , 118 ] (0.7%) translated their Q-methodology findings into a survey, referring to the process as ‘Q2S’. Through a Q-methodological study, Baker et al [ 31 ] identified three viewpoints (factors) on healthcare priorities and resource allocation.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the same article, they then adapted the Q-sorting task into a survey to identify the distribution of each of the three viewpoints in a larger population. Leggat et al [ 118 ] identified two factors regarding the content of clinical supervision for allied health staff. The results were used to develop a survey on the content, outcomes and understanding of clinical supervision.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A scoping review of Q-methodology in healthcare research

Churruca

Ludlow

et al. 2021

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Q-methodology is an approach to studying complex issues of human ‘subjectivity’. Although this approach was developed in the early twentieth century, the value of Q-methodology in healthcare was not recognised until relatively recently. The aim of this review was to scope the empirical healthcare literature to examine the extent to which Q-methodology has been utilised in healthcare over time, including how it has been used and for what purposes. Methods A search of three electronic databases (Scopus, EBSCO-CINAHL Complete, Medline) was conducted. No date restriction was applied. A title and abstract review, followed by a full-text review, was conducted by a team of five reviewers. Included articles were English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles that used Q-methodology (both Q-sorting and inverted factor analysis) in healthcare settings. The following data items were extracted into a purpose-designed Excel spreadsheet: study details (e.g., setting, country, year), reasons for using Q-methodology, healthcare topic area, participants (type and number), materials (e.g., ranking anchors and Q-set), methods (e.g., development of the Q-set, analysis), study results, and study implications. Data synthesis was descriptive in nature and involved frequency counting, open coding and the organisation by data items. Results Of the 2,302 articles identified by the search, 289 studies were included in this review. We found evidence of increased use of Q-methodology in healthcare, particularly over the last 5 years. However, this research remains diffuse, spread across a large number of journals and topic areas. In a number of studies, we identified limitations in the reporting of methods, such as insufficient information on how authors derived their Q-set, what types of analyses they performed, and the amount of variance explained. Conclusions Although Q-methodology is increasingly being adopted in healthcare research, it still appears to be relatively novel. This review highlight commonalities in how the method has been used, areas of application, and the potential value of the approach. To facilitate reporting of Q-methodological studies, we present a checklist of details that should be included for publication.

show abstract

“…Across the studies reviewed, professional supervision was noted to be an important process to enable professionals to improve the quality of patient care. 19,21,22,26 Evidence based quality care is a key aspect of all health professionals' roles. The research noted that professional supervision can contribute to professional growth which in turn will ensure delivery of high-quality care.…”

Section: Support For Quality Patient Carementioning

confidence: 99%