Effectiveness of clinical supervision of physiotherapists: a survey
David A. Snowdon A C , Geraldine Millard A and Nicholas F. Taylor BA Physiotherapy, The Peter James Centre, Eastern Health, Corner of Mahoneys Road and Burwood Highway, Burwood East, Vic. 3151, Australia. Email: Geraldine.Millard@easternhealth.org.au
B Allied Health Clinical Research Office, Eastern Health, La Trobe University, Level 2/5 Arnold Street, Box Hill, Vic. 3128, Australia. Email: Nicholas.Taylor@easternhealth.org.au
C Corresponding author. Email: david@snowdon.name
Australian Health Review 39(2) 190-196 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH14020
Submitted: 30 January 2014 Accepted: 3 November 2014 Published: 5 January 2015
Abstract
Objectives Limited literature exists on the practice of clinical supervision (CS) of professional physiotherapists despite current Australian safety and quality health standards stating that CS is to be provided to all physiotherapists. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of CS of physiotherapists working in an Australian public health service.
Methods CS was measured using the allied health-specific 26-item modified Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale (MCSS-26). Subscales of the MCSS-26 were summed for three domain scores (normative, restorative and formative) and a total score was calculated, which was compared with the reported threshold score of 73 for effective supervision. Sixty registered physiotherapists (response rate 92%), working for a large metropolitan public health service, with six different site locations, completed the survey.
Results The mean (± s.d.) total MCSS-26 score was 71.0 ± 14.3 (95% confidence interval (CI) 67.4–74.6). Hospital site was the only variable that had a significant effect on total MCSS-26 score (P = 0.005); there was no effect for supervisor or supervisee experience, or hospital setting (acute vs subacute). Physiotherapists scored a significantly lower mean percentage MCSS-26 score on the normative domain compared with the restorative domain (mean difference 7.8%; 95% CI 2.9–12.7; P = 0.002) and the formative domain (mean difference 9.6%; 95% CI 6.3–13.0; P < 0.001). Of the two subscales that form the normative domain, ‘finding time’ had a significantly lower mean percentage MCSS-26 score than ‘importance/value of CS’ (mean difference 35.4%; 95% CI 31.3–39.4; P < 0.001).
Conclusions Within this publicly funded physiotherapy department there was uncertainty about the effectiveness of CS, with more than half the physiotherapists rating their supervision as less than effective, suggesting there is opportunity for improvement in the practice of physiotherapy CS. Physiotherapists scored lowest in the normative domain, indicating that they found it difficult to find time for CS.
What is known about the topic? Previous research into CS for allied health professionals has shown that, on average, it is effective. However, these results cannot be generalised to specific allied health disciplines. Currently, the effectiveness of CS for physiotherapists is unknown.
What does this paper add? This study is the first to investigate the effectiveness of CS in a large physiotherapy department of a publicly funded Australian healthcare service.
What are the implications for practitioners? Requiring all physiotherapists to receive CS may not be useful if supervision is not effective. Finding time for CS appears to be the main barrier to effective CS. Focus should be directed towards developing a framework within which to practice CS that includes protected time for participation in CS.
References
[1] Lyth GM. Clinical supervision: a concept analysis. J Adv Nurs 2000; 31 722–9.| Clinical supervision: a concept analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c7osVamsQ%3D%3D&md5=f3b10075c3b7b9ce840caf3a1d736b67CAS | 10718893PubMed |
[2] Fitzpatrick S, Smith M, Wilding C. Quality allied health clinical supervision policy in Australia: a literature review. Aust Health Rev 2012; 36 461–5.
| Quality allied health clinical supervision policy in Australia: a literature review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23116979PubMed |
[3] Dawson M, Phillips P, Leggat S. Clinical supervision for allied health professionals: a systematic review. J Allied Health 2013; 42 65–73.
| 23752232PubMed |
[4] Proctor B. Supervision: a cooperative exercise in accountability. In M Marken, M Payne, editors. Enabling and ensuring: supervision in practice. Leicester, UK: National Youth Bureau and Council for Education and Training in Youth and Community Work; 1986. pp. 21–34.
[5] Milne D. An empirical definition of clinical supervision. Br J Clin Psychol 2007; 46 437–47.
| An empirical definition of clinical supervision.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17535535PubMed |
[6] Brunero S, Stein-Parbury J. The effectiveness of clinical supervision in nursing: an evidence based literature review. Aust J Adv Nurs 2008; 25 86–94.
[7] Buus N, Gonge H. Empirical studies of clinical supervision in psychiatric nursing: a systematic review of the literature and methodological critique. Int J Ment Health Nurs 2009; 18 250–64.
| Empirical studies of clinical supervision in psychiatric nursing: a systematic review of the literature and methodological critique.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19594645PubMed |
[8] Dawson M, Phillips B, Leggat S. Effective clinical supervision for regional allied health professionals: the supervisee’s perspective. Aust Health Rev 2012; 36 92–7.
| Effective clinical supervision for regional allied health professionals: the supervisee’s perspective.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22513027PubMed |
[9] White E, Winstanley J. Clinical supervision for nurses working in mental health settings in Queensland, Australia: selected findings from a novel Australian attempt to establish the evidence base for causal relationships with quality of care and patient outcomes, as an informed contribution to mental health nursing practice development. J Res Nurs 2010; 15 151–67.
| Clinical supervision for nurses working in mental health settings in Queensland, Australia: selected findings from a novel Australian attempt to establish the evidence base for causal relationships with quality of care and patient outcomes, as an informed contribution to mental health nursing practice development.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[10] Driscoll J. Practising clinical supervision: a reflective approach for healthcare professionals. 2nd edn. Sydney: Bailliere Tindall Elsevier; 2007.
[11] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. National safety and quality health standards. 2011. Available at: http://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/NSQHS-Standards-Sept2011.pdf [verified 15 June 2013].
[12] Yegdich T. Lost in the crucible of supportive clinical supervision: supervision is not therapy. J Adv Nurs 1999; 29 1265–75.
| Lost in the crucible of supportive clinical supervision: supervision is not therapy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK1M3lsFygtA%3D%3D&md5=8041ac51884e4d8b745fff224a552e35CAS | 10320512PubMed |
[13] Severinsson E, Haruna M, Friberg I. Midwives’ group supervision and the influence of their continuity of care model: a pilot sudy. J Nurs Manag 2010; 18 400–8.
| Midwives’ group supervision and the influence of their continuity of care model: a pilot sudy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20609044PubMed |
[14] Gonge H, Buss N. Model for investigating the benefits of clinical supervision in psychiatric nursing: a survey study. Int J Ment Health Nurs 2011; 20 102–11.
| Model for investigating the benefits of clinical supervision in psychiatric nursing: a survey study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21371225PubMed |
[15] Hyrkäs K. Clinical supervision, burnout and job satisfaction among mental health psychiatric nurses in Finland. Issues Ment Health Nurs 2005; 26 531–56.
| Clinical supervision, burnout and job satisfaction among mental health psychiatric nurses in Finland.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16020067PubMed |
[16] Sellars J. Learning from contemporary practice: an exploration of clinical supervision in physiotherapy. Learn Health Soc Care 2004; 3 64–82.
| Learning from contemporary practice: an exploration of clinical supervision in physiotherapy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[17] Winstanley J. Manchester clinical supervision scale. Nurs Stand 2000; 14 31–2.
| 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M7jtVajtw%3D%3D&md5=62d0cca374f91f82cb9f71bf9a7628a7CAS | 11209386PubMed |
[18] Hyrkäs K, Appelqvist-Schmidlechner K, Haataja R. Efficacy of clinical supervision: influence on job satisfaction, burnout and quality of care. J Adv Nurs 2006; 55 521–35.
| Efficacy of clinical supervision: influence on job satisfaction, burnout and quality of care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16866847PubMed |
[19] Winstanley J, White E. The MCSS-26 user manual. Sydney: Osman Consulting; 2011.
[20] Winstanley J, White E. The MCSS-26: revision of the Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale using the Rasch measurement model. J Nurs Meas 2011; 19 160–78.
| The MCSS-26: revision of the Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale using the Rasch measurement model.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22372092PubMed |
[21] Buus N, Gonge H. Translation of the Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale (MCSS) into Danish and a preliminary psychometric validation. Int J Ment Health Nurs 2013; 22 145–53.
| Translation of the Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale (MCSS) into Danish and a preliminary psychometric validation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22762279PubMed |
[22] Saxby C, Wilson J, Newcombe P. Does best practice clinical supervision lead to better outcomes? Findings from a Queensland study of community allied health professionals. In Proceedings of the Advances in Clinical Supervision Conference, 4–6 June 2013, Sydney, Australia. Sydney: The New South Wales Institute of Psychiatry; 2013. pp. 23–27.
[23] Cleary M, Horsfall J, Happell B. Establishing clinical supervision in acute mental health inpatient units: acknowledging the challenges. Issues Ment Health Nurs 2010; 31 525–31.
| Establishing clinical supervision in acute mental health inpatient units: acknowledging the challenges.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20624021PubMed |
[24] Hyrkäs K, Appelqvist-Schmidlechner K, Oksa L. Validating an instrument for clinical supervision using an expert panel. Int J Nurs Stud 2003; 40 619–25.
| Validating an instrument for clinical supervision using an expert panel.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12834927PubMed |
[25] Edwards D, Cooper L, Burnard P, Hannigan B, Adams J, Fothergill A, Coyle D. Factors influencing the effectiveness of clinical effectiveness [erratum published in J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2005; 12: 752]. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2005; 12 405–14.
| 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2MzlvVKnsQ%3D%3D&md5=84c10531d8b17586c63df247f577cd1cCAS | 16011495PubMed |
[26] Hyrkäs K, Appelqvist-Schmidlechner K, Paunonen-Ilmonen M. Translating and validating the Finnish version of the Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale. Scand J Caring Sci 2003; 17 358–64.
| Translating and validating the Finnish version of the Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 14629638PubMed |
[27] Severinsson E. Evaluation of the Manchester clinical supervision scale: Norwegian and Swedish versions. J Nurs Manag 2012; 20 81–9.
| Evaluation of the Manchester clinical supervision scale: Norwegian and Swedish versions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22229904PubMed |
[28] Grimmer K, Lizarondo L, Kumar S, Bell E, Buist M, Weinstein P. An evidence-based framework to measure quality of allied health care. Health Res Policy Syst 2014; 12 10
| An evidence-based framework to measure quality of allied health care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24571857PubMed |
