Connecting practice: a practitioner centred model of supervision

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to analyse existing clinical supervision frameworks to develop a supervision meta-model. Design/methodology/approach -This research involved a thematic analysis of existing supervision frameworks used to support allied health practitioners working in rural or remote settings in Australia to identify key domains of supervision which could form the basis of supervision framework in this context. A three-tiered sampling approach of the selection of supervision frameworks ensured the direct relevance of the final domains identified to Australian rural allied health practitioners, allied health practitioners generally and to the wider area of health supervision. Thematic analysis was undertaken by Framework analysis methodology using Mindmapping software. The results were organised into a new conceptual model which places the practitioner at the centre of supervision. Findings -The review included 17 supervision frameworks, encompassing 13 domains of supervision: definitions; purpose and function; supervision models; contexts; content; Modes of engagement; Supervisor attributes; supervisory relationships; supervisor responsibilities; supervisee responsibilities; structures/process for supervision and support; facilitators and barriers; outcomes. The authors developed a reflective, supervision and support framework "Connecting Practice" that is practitioner centred, recognises the tacit and explicit knowledge that staff bring to the relationship, and enables them to identify their own goals and support networks within the context in which they work. Research limitations/implications -This is a thematic analysis of the literature which was argely based on an analysis of grey literature. Practical implications -The resulting core domains of supervision provide an evidence-based foundation for the development of clinical supervision models which can be adapted to a range of contexts. Social implications -An outcome of this paper is a framework called Connecting Practice which organises the domains of supervision in a temporal way, separating those domains that can be modified to improve the supervision framework, from those which are less easily modifiable. This approach is important to help embed the implementation of supervision and support into organisational practice. This paper adds to the existing growing body of work around supervision by helping understand the domains or components that make up the supervisory experience. Originality/value -Connecting Practice replaces traditional, more hierarchical models of supervision to put the practitioner at the centre of a personalised supervision and support network.The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

Bridging the training-practice gap in interprofessional student supervision

“…Barriers and enablers reported in this study are consistent with those identified in previous studies and reviews [1, 2, 4]. Time is a key factor which can act both as an enabler of and a barrier to effective supervision [1, 4].…”

“…The findings of this study reinforce the importance of supervisors being able to quarantine and prioritize time for student supervision. This cannot be achieved without the support of the management and organization [2, 4]. When clinicians are supported to prioritize time for supervision, it promotes a positive supervision culture [1, 2].…”

“…There is an abundance of evidence in the literature that highlights the importance of a positive supervisory relationship [4, 6] which has been shown to have a direct effect on student self-efficacy and learning outcomes [2]. It is re-assuring that many participants understood the importance of a positive supervisory relationship and reported on intentions to build the supervisory relationships.…”

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

“…Although the use of documentation such as supervision agreements is commonly recommended in the clinical supervision literature (Dawson et al, 2013b;Nancarrow et al, 2014), only one study could be located that linked increased supervision effectiveness with structured processes (Kuipers et al, 2013). Kuipers and colleague's (2013) study of peer group supervision reported positive outcomes associated with the use of tools adopted from supervision training and when peer groups "reviewed their activities at some level" (Kuipers et al,p.…”

“…Supervisors and supervisees regarded the use of structured processes such as a Dawson et al, 2013b;Nancarrow et al, 2014), however no other study could be located that decisively linked increased supervision effectiveness with supervision agreements. For example, Kuipers and colleague's (2013) study of peer group supervision reported greater impact was associated with structured arrangements however the use of supervision agreements was not linked with positive outcomes.…”