AIM: Clinical supervision (CS) for health professionals supports quality clinical practice. This study explored current CS effectiveness for allied health professionals (AHPs) at a regional health service from a supervisee perspective and identified improvements. METHOD: The Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale (MCSS) was completed by 30 supervisees to determine their perceptions of CS effectiveness. RESULTS: Supervision sessions typically occurred monthly (56.7%) and were one-to-one (86.2%). The mean total MCSS score was 142.83 (s.d. 15.73), greater than the reported threshold score of 136 for effective CS. The mean subscale scores of 'trust/rapport' and 'improved care/skills' were high, in contrast to the mean subscale scores for 'finding time' and 'personal issues', which were significantly lower than the other subscales (P<0.001). Low scores for 'finding time' and 'personal issues' subscales may be associated with emotional exhaustion and depersonalisation. CONCLUSIONS: In this first study evaluating CS for AHPs using the MCSS, CS was reported as being valued and important. However, there is a need for improvement in addressing personal issues that affect work performance and for finding time for CS. As effective CS is an important component of clinical governance by supporting safe and effective healthcare provision, it is vital that CS processes are improved.
AIM: Clinical supervision (CS) for health professionals supports quality clinical practice. This study explored current CS effectiveness for allied health professionals (AHPs) at a regional health service from a supervisee perspective and identified improvements. METHOD: The Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale (MCSS) was completed by 30 supervisees to determine their perceptions of CS effectiveness. RESULTS: Supervision sessions typically occurred monthly (56.7%) and were one-to-one (86.2%). The mean total MCSS score was 142.83 (s.d. 15.73), greater than the reported threshold score of 136 for effective CS. The mean subscale scores of 'trust/rapport' and 'improved care/skills' were high, in contrast to the mean subscale scores for 'finding time' and 'personal issues', which were significantly lower than the other subscales (P<0.001). Low scores for 'finding time' and 'personal issues' subscales may be associated with emotional exhaustion and depersonalisation. CONCLUSIONS: In this first study evaluating CS for AHPs using the MCSS, CS was reported as being valued and important. However, there is a need for improvement in addressing personal issues that affect work performance and for finding time for CS. As effective CS is an important component of clinical governance by supporting safe and effective healthcare provision, it is vital that CS processes are improved.
Authors: David A Snowdon; Shae Cooke; Katherine Lawler; Grant Scroggie; Kimberley Williams; Nicholas F Taylor Journal: Physiother Can Date: 2020 Impact factor: 1.037
Authors: David A Snowdon; Michelle Sargent; Cylie M Williams; Stephen Maloney; Kirsten Caspers; Nicholas F Taylor Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2019-12-31 Impact factor: 2.655