Clinical supervision effectiveness in NHS nursing, medical and allied health professionals: Exploring interaction with workplace factors, supervision factors and burnout.
Emma Sellers, Sarah Craven-Staines, Claire Vaughan
{"title":"Clinical supervision effectiveness in NHS nursing, medical and allied health professionals: Exploring interaction with workplace factors, supervision factors and burnout.","authors":"Emma Sellers, Sarah Craven-Staines, Claire Vaughan","doi":"10.1111/jep.14149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The study aimed to (1) determine if a variety of workplace and supervision factors predict clinical supervision effectiveness; and (2) establish if clinical supervision effectiveness predicts burnout, amongst a variety of mental health staff (medical, allied health, and nursing staff).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>The study adopted a multicentre cross-sectional online survey design.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants included 204 mental health staff (89 allied health staff, 81 nursing staff, and 34 medical staff). The Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale (MCSS-26) was used to measure clinical supervision effectiveness, and the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI-HSS) was used to measure burnout. Linear regression analyses and multiple regression analyses were conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The main findings suggested that supervision frequency, supervision duration, choice of supervisor, workplace setting, and supervisee profession, were all significant predictors of clinical supervision effectiveness. Additionally, clinical supervision effectiveness was a significant negative predictor of burnout.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Workplace and supervision factors should be considered in supervision practice across professional groups. Policies need to promote effective clinical supervision practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14149","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: The study aimed to (1) determine if a variety of workplace and supervision factors predict clinical supervision effectiveness; and (2) establish if clinical supervision effectiveness predicts burnout, amongst a variety of mental health staff (medical, allied health, and nursing staff).
Design: The study adopted a multicentre cross-sectional online survey design.
Methods: Participants included 204 mental health staff (89 allied health staff, 81 nursing staff, and 34 medical staff). The Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale (MCSS-26) was used to measure clinical supervision effectiveness, and the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI-HSS) was used to measure burnout. Linear regression analyses and multiple regression analyses were conducted.
Results: The main findings suggested that supervision frequency, supervision duration, choice of supervisor, workplace setting, and supervisee profession, were all significant predictors of clinical supervision effectiveness. Additionally, clinical supervision effectiveness was a significant negative predictor of burnout.
Conclusions: Workplace and supervision factors should be considered in supervision practice across professional groups. Policies need to promote effective clinical supervision practice.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
