A systematic review of evidence relating to clinical supervision for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals. (8th February 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pollock, Alex; Campbell, Pauline; Deery, Ruth; Fleming, Mick; Rankin, Jean; Sloan, Graham; Cheyne, Helen
• Is Part Of: Journal of advanced nursing. Volume 73:Number 8(2017)
• Page Start: 1825
• Page End: 1837
• Publication Date: 2017-02-08
• Subjects: allied health professionals -- clinical supervision -- literature review -- midwives -- nurses -- systematic review; Nursing -- Periodicals; 610.7305
• DOI: 10.1111/jan.13253
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0309-2402

Abstract

Abstract: 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.