BACKGROUND: In the UK clinical supervision is regarded as an essential process supporting quality improvement within the clinical governance framework, and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists regards it as a tool for promoting critical reflective practice. There is limited evidence of the impact on practice or improvements in healthcare quality, and the need for an evaluation instrument specifically tailored to group supervision. AIMS: To develop a measure for assessing staff perspectives on the quality of clinical group supervision and its impact on the quality of care. METHODS & PROCEDURES: A self-completion questionnaire was devised to measure staff perceptions of purpose, process and impact of clinical group supervision. Items were developed through an inductive process of consultation, peer and literature review. The questionnaire's content validity was assessed. The questionnaire was then administered to 57 subjects who had received approximately 1 year of clinical supervision to evaluate acceptability, factor structure and convergent validity. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Response rates were 91% (52/57). Principal component factor analysis suggested a three-factor structure, the first three factors accounting for 72.4% of the total variance. Items loaded appropriately onto purpose, process and impact. These three dimensions were positively and moderately correlated. Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.86) indicated that the 14 items could be regarded as a scale. The overall CSEQ score was positively correlated with a single question assessing 'general opinion' about the CS program (Spearman's rho = 0.79, p < 0.001) giving evidence for convergent validity. CONCLUSIONS: The questionnaire is concise, easy to complete and simple to analyse, and appears to be a reliable and valid measure of staff perceptions of quality of clinical group supervision. Further studies with larger sample sizes and including other groups of health professionals are needed to confirm the validity and reliability of the CSEQ.
BACKGROUND: In the UK clinical supervision is regarded as an essential process supporting quality improvement within the clinical governance framework, and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists regards it as a tool for promoting critical reflective practice. There is limited evidence of the impact on practice or improvements in healthcare quality, and the need for an evaluation instrument specifically tailored to group supervision. AIMS: To develop a measure for assessing staff perspectives on the quality of clinical group supervision and its impact on the quality of care. METHODS & PROCEDURES: A self-completion questionnaire was devised to measure staff perceptions of purpose, process and impact of clinical group supervision. Items were developed through an inductive process of consultation, peer and literature review. The questionnaire's content validity was assessed. The questionnaire was then administered to 57 subjects who had received approximately 1 year of clinical supervision to evaluate acceptability, factor structure and convergent validity. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Response rates were 91% (52/57). Principal component factor analysis suggested a three-factor structure, the first three factors accounting for 72.4% of the total variance. Items loaded appropriately onto purpose, process and impact. These three dimensions were positively and moderately correlated. Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.86) indicated that the 14 items could be regarded as a scale. The overall CSEQ score was positively correlated with a single question assessing 'general opinion' about the CS program (Spearman's rho = 0.79, p < 0.001) giving evidence for convergent validity. CONCLUSIONS: The questionnaire is concise, easy to complete and simple to analyse, and appears to be a reliable and valid measure of staff perceptions of quality of clinical group supervision. Further studies with larger sample sizes and including other groups of health professionals are needed to confirm the validity and reliability of the CSEQ.
Authors: Michael Schriver; Vincent Kalumire Cubaka; Peter Vedsted; Innocent Besigye; Per Kallestrup Journal: Glob Health Action Date: 2018 Impact factor: 2.640