Clinical supervision practice by community‐based child and family health nurses: A mixed‐method systematic review

Abstract

Aims:To systematically search the literature to identify studies related to clinical supervision in child and family health nurse contexts, and to determine the role it has in professional practice and the characteristics required for effective supervision.Design: A mixed-method systematic review using a convergent integrative approach to data synthesis. Data source: Studies only in English language were identified from searches of CINAHL, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases covering the years of publication from January 1990 to December 2020. Review methods: Primary research studies of clinical supervision with child and family health nurses in community settings were included. Studies were critically appraised for methodological quality and data extracted, coded and analysed for themes in keeping with the review aims and key findings of each study. Results: Of 2185 records screened, 63 full-text papers were assessed for eligibility, which yielded 12 publications for inclusion-11 from the United Kingdom and one from Sweden. The majority (75%) of included studies were qualitative or mixed method. Four main themes with sub-themes were identified: structural features, supportive experience, ensuring safety and strengthening practice. Conclusion: Clinical supervision across child and family health nurse contexts is limited. This study highlighted organizational commitment to clinical supervision as an important component of safe and quality practice. Supervisor training and supervisee orientation to supervision is required to optimize effective participation, together with shared agreement of the goals and purpose of supervision. Impact: The findings from this review confirm the potential for clinical supervision to support improved outcomes for children and families. Understanding what models work best and in what contexts will inform workplace policy and educational programs for child and family nurses across diverse settings.

Clinical supervision experience of nurses in or transitioning to advanced practice: A systematic review

“…Advanced practitioners are often employed in complex areas such as forensic care, refugee and homeless shelters, with vulnerable people, or in rural and remote areas (Torrens et al, 2020). Over time, this complexity can make them highly susceptible to loneliness, stress, moral distress and burnout (Cummings et al, 2021;O'Neill et al, 2022;Ventovara et al, 2021). Participation in regular CS could help alleviate these issues provided it was facilitated by a trusted supervisor (Cummings et al, 2021;Martin et al, 2021;Ryan et al, 2020), which support the findings from this study.…”

“…Five studies were conducted in Australia (Bruce et al, 2018;Cook et al, 2020;Cross et al, 2012;O'Neill et al, 2022;Tulleners et al, 2022); five in the United Kingdom, (Greenway et al, 2013;Jarrett & Barlow, 2014;Lee et al, 2021;Richardson et al, 2008;Younge et al, 2020), two in Norway (Hoybakk et al, 2022;Jolstad et al, 2019)…”

“…At present, no CS approach has been found specifically designed to support APNs (Pollock et al, 2017). Although a recent systematic review confirmed the efficacy of CS for child and family health nurses (O'Neill et al, 2022). While variations of CS enable a pragmatic approach, it is important to ensure foundational processes and structures for their use are based on rigorous research with evidence of effectiveness.…”

‘What is it we are trying to achieve here’? Community maternal and child health nurses and clinical supervision: A qualitative descriptive study

“…Globally, very little is known about clinical supervision practices of community-based child and family health nurses (O'Neill et al, 2022).…”

“…Globally, very little is known about clinical supervision practices of community‐based child and family health nurses (O'Neill et al, 2022). Clinical supervision studies with UK‐based nurses showed a reduction in burnout and work‐related stress (Wallbank, 2012), support to manage child‐related risk (Rooke, 2015) and greater flexibility of thinking (Little et al, 2018).…”