Factors that contribute to high-quality clinical supervision of the rural allied health workforce: lessons from the coalface

Objective The aim of this study was to identify the factors contributing to high-quality clinical supervision of the allied health workforce in rural and remote settings. Methods This quantitative study was part of a broader project that used a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design. Participants were 159 allied health professionals from two Australian states. Quantitative data were collected using an online customised survey and the Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale (MCSS-26). Data were analysed using regression analyses. Results Supervisee’s work setting and choice of supervisor were found to have a positive and significant influence on clinical supervision quality. Supervisee profession and time in work role were found to have a negative and significant influence on the quality of clinical supervision. Conclusions High-quality clinical supervision is essential to achieve quality and safety of health care, as well as to support the health workforce. Information on high-quality clinical supervision identified in this study can be applied to clinical supervision practices in rural and remote settings, and to professional support policies and training to enhance the quality of supervision. What is known about the topic? There is mounting evidence on the benefits of clinical supervision to health professionals, organisations and patients. Clinical supervision enhances recruitment and retention of the health workforce. However, there are still gaps regarding the factors that contribute to high-quality clinical supervision, especially for rural and remote health professionals. What does this paper add? This study, the first of its kind, recruited rural and remote health professionals from seven allied health disciplines across two Australian states. It investigated the factors that influence high-quality clinical supervision in this under-resourced group. This paper outlines specific factors that contribute to clinical supervision quality for rural and remote allied health professionals. What are the implications for practitioners? Effective and high-quality clinical supervision of the rural and remote allied health workforce can enhance recruitment and retention in those areas. Healthcare organisations can facilitate effective clinical supervision delivery by using the evidence gathered in this study in clinical supervision policy, training and practice.

Download Full-text

Quality allied health clinical supervision policy in Australia: a literature review

Australian Health Review ◽

10.1071/ah11053 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 36 (4) ◽

pp. 461 ◽

Cited By ~ 20

Author(s):

Sue Fitzpatrick ◽

Megan Smith ◽

Clare Wilding

Keyword(s):

Literature Review ◽

Clinical Supervision ◽

Health Professionals ◽

Allied Health ◽

Poor Quality ◽

Retention Rates ◽

Clear Understanding ◽

Allied Health Professionals ◽

Supervision Process

Clinical supervision is presented as a complex set of skills that may broadly apply to any and all allied health professions. However, it is also noted that a clear understanding of clinical supervision and how to implement it in allied health is currently lacking. It is argued that there is a need to reflect upon current approaches to clinical supervision amongst allied health professionals and to gain a shared understanding about what supervision involves, what effective supervision is, and what effective implementation of clinical supervision might look like. By gaining an understanding of what high quality clinical supervision is and how it is best put into practice, it is anticipated that this will form the first step in developing an understandable and useful universal supervision policy for all allied health professionals. What is known about the topic? Clinical supervision is important because it improves quality of care for clients and it may also improve staff satisfaction and retention rates and clinical governance for organisations. There is a clear need for a well-articulated supervision policy in allied health as there is currently no comprehensive and universally accepted supervision policy for this group of health professionals. What does this paper add? This literature review argues that if there is no clear supervision policy that is endorsed at a whole of health level there is a risk that disparate, haphazard, and poorly coordinated approaches to supervision may result in poor quality of supervision provision. Much of the recent literature is profession-specific; however, this paper contends that there are many possible reasons for collaboration in establishing clinical supervision in allied health. The possible barriers to implementing a universal policy are also examined. What are the implications for practitioners? This literature review will help practitioners understand the complex issues that inform the clinical supervision process and particularly those factors that affect the delivery of an excellent quality of supervision. This knowledge will help them to assess the quality of supervision they receive and provide, and may also contribute to motivation to work with colleagues to develop meritorious supervision skill.

Download Full-text

TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION: WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR RURAL AND REMOTE ALLIED HEALTH PROFESSIONALS?

Australian Journal of Rural Health ◽

10.1111/j.1440-1584.1998.tb00311.x ◽

1998 ◽

Vol 6 (4) ◽

pp. 189-193 ◽

Cited By ~ 31

Author(s):

Lorraine Sheppard ◽

Shylie Mackintosh

Keyword(s):

Health Professionals ◽

Allied Health ◽

Technology In Education ◽

Rural And Remote ◽

Allied Health Professionals

Download Full-text

Clinical supervision for allied health staff: necessary but not sufficient

Australian Health Review ◽

10.1071/ah15080 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 40 (4) ◽

pp. 431 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Sandra G. Leggat ◽

Bev Phillips ◽

Philippa Pearce ◽

Margaret Dawson ◽

Debbie Schulz ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Health Services ◽

Performance Management ◽

Clinical Supervision ◽

Health Professionals ◽

Allied Health ◽

Clinical Governance ◽

Health Staff ◽

Allied Health Professionals ◽

Australian Health ◽

The Relationship

Objectives The aim of the present study was to explore the perspectives of allied health professionals on appropriate content for effective clinical supervision of staff. Methods A set of statements regarding clinical supervision was identified from the literature and confirmed through a Q-sort process. The final set was administered as an online survey to 437 allied health professionals working in two Australian health services. Results Of the 120 respondents, 82 had experienced six or more clinical supervision sessions and were included in the analysis. Respondents suggested that clinical supervision was beneficial to both staff and patients, and was distinct from line management performance monitoring and development. Curiously, some of the respondents did not agree that observation of the supervisee’s clinical practice was an aspect of clinical supervision. Conclusions Although clinical supervision is included as a pillar of clinical governance, current practice may not be effective in addressing clinical risk. Australian health services need clear organisational policies that outline the relationship between supervisor and supervisee, the role and responsibilities of managers, the involvement of patients and the types of situations to be communicated to the line managers. What is known about the topic? Clinical supervision for allied health professionals is an essential component of clinical governance and is aimed at ensuring safe and high-quality care. However, there is varied understanding of the relationship between clinical supervision and performance management. What does this paper add? This paper provides the perspectives of allied health professionals who are experienced as supervisors or who have experienced supervision. The findings suggest a clear role for clinical supervision that needs to be better recognised within organisational policy and procedure. What are the implications for practitioners? Supervisors and supervisees must remember their duty of care and ensure compliance with organisational policies in their clinical supervisory practices.

Download Full-text

Quality of Dutch integrated head and neck cancer care: Measurement and evaluation.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2017.35.8_suppl.173 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽

pp. 173-173 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Lydia Francisca Jacoba van Overveld ◽

Robert P. Takes ◽

Jozé C.C. Braspenning ◽

Matthias A.W. Merkx ◽

Ludi E Smeele ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Head And Neck Cancer ◽

Head And Neck ◽

Integrated Care ◽

Neck Cancer ◽

Health Professionals ◽

Allied Health ◽

Case Mix ◽

Allied Health Professionals ◽

First Results

173 Background: Oncologic care is very complex, and delivery of integrated care with optimal alignment and collaboration of several disciplines is crucial. To monitor and effectively improve high-quality integrated oncologic care, a dashboard of valid and reliable quality indicators (QIs) is indispensable. A set of QIs is developed specifically for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients from three perspectives: patients (development of indicators from patient perspective, including the first results, are described in the abstract "PROMs and PREMs in Dutch integrated head and neck cancer care: Measurements and evaluation"), medical specialist and allied health professionals. This presentation concerns the first results from medical and allied health professional perspective. Methods: QIs on process, structure and outcome of care, were developed using an evidence based method: the Rand modified Delphi method. Data was collected in nine Dutch hospitals nearly 1,500 patients (November 2014 - December 2016). Indicators were calculated on national and hospital level and corrected for case-mix using SPSS. Results: The final set contained 5 outcome indicators from both perspectives, 13 and 18 process indicators from the perspective of medical specialists and allied health professionals respectively, and three structure indicators from the perspective of allied health professionals. Besides, 10 case-mix factors were selected. Current practice assessment, in 1263 patients, produced high scores on integrated care indicators, e.g., the percentage of patients discussed in multidisciplinary team meeting before start of the treatment (93%) and availability of a treatment plan (99%). However, involvement of dental teams (range 57 – 100%) and malnutrition screening (range 8-35%) could be improved in most hospitals. In addition, most hospitals did not meet the standard of 80% on patients starting with treatment within 30 days. Conclusions: The quality of integrated multidisciplinary care for patients with head and neck cancer in the Netherlands is already high on some aspects, but varied between hospitals and shows room for improvement. This study can be an example for other oncologic diseases where integrated care is necessary.

Download Full-text