Abstract
Aim: 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.
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 summarised in tables. Data describing the key components of clinical supervision interventions were extracted from studies included in Synthesis 2,
categorised 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.
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.
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 summarised in tables. Data describing the key components of clinical supervision interventions were extracted from studies included in Synthesis 2,
categorised 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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Journal of Advanced Nursing |
| Early online date | 8 Feb 2017 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 8 Feb 2017 |
Keywords
- clinical supervision
- Midwives
- Nurses
- allied health professionals
- literature review
- systematic review