Premium
A systematic review of evidence relating to clinical supervision for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals
Author(s) -
Pollock Alex,
Campbell Pauline,
Deery Ruth,
Fleming Mick,
Rankin Jean,
Sloan Graham,
Cheyne Helen
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
journal of advanced nursing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.948
H-Index - 155
eISSN - 1365-2648
pISSN - 0309-2402
DOI - 10.1111/jan.13253
Subject(s) - psychological intervention , clinical supervision , consistency (knowledge bases) , systematic review , intervention (counseling) , allied health professions , medicine , evidence based practice , nursing , medline , medical education , psychology , health care , alternative medicine , computer science , political science , law , pathology , artificial intelligence , economics , economic growth
Aim The aim of this study was to systematically review evidence relating to clinical supervision for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals. Background Since 1902 statutory supervision has been a requirement for UK midwives, but this is due to change. Evidence relating to clinical supervision for nurses and allied health professions could inform a new model of clinical supervision for midwives. Design A systematic review with a contingent design, comprising a broad map of research relating to clinical supervision and two focussed syntheses answering specific review questions. Data sources Electronic databases were searched from 2005 ‐ September 2015, limited to English‐language peer‐reviewed publications. Review methods Systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of clinical supervision were included in Synthesis 1. Primary research studies including a description of a clinical supervision intervention were included in Synthesis 2. Quality of reviews were judged using a risk of bias tool and review results summarized in tables. Data describing the key components of clinical supervision interventions were extracted from studies included in Synthesis 2, categorized using a reporting framework and a narrative account provided. Results Ten reviews were included in Synthesis 1; these demonstrated an absence of convincing empirical evidence and lack of agreement over the nature of clinical supervision. Nineteen primary studies were included in Synthesis 2; these highlighted a lack of consistency and large variations between delivered interventions. Conclusion Despite insufficient evidence to directly inform the selection and implementation of a framework, the limited available evidence can inform the design of a new model of clinical supervision for UK ‐based midwives.