Title

Connecting practice: a practitioner centred model of supervision

Document Type

Article

Publication details

Nancarrow, SA, Wade, R, Moran, A, Coyle, J, Young, J & Boxall, D 2014, 'Connecting practice: a practitioner centred model of supervision', Clinical governance: An International Journal, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 235-252.

Published version available from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CGIJ-03-2014-0010

Peer Reviewed

Peer-Reviewed

Abstract

Purpose:

The purpose of this paper is to analyse existing clinical supervision frameworks to develop a supervision meta-model.

Design/methodology/approach:
This research involved a thematic analysis of existing supervision frameworks used to support allied health practitioners working in rural or remote settings in Australia to identify key domains of supervision which could form the basis of supervision framework in this context. A three-tiered sampling approach of the selection of supervision frameworks ensured the direct relevance of the final domains identified to Australian rural allied health practitioners, allied health practitioners generally and to the wider area of health supervision. Thematic analysis was undertaken by Framework analysis methodology using Mindmapping software. The results were organised into a new conceptual model which places the practitioner at the centre of supervision.
Findings:
The review included 17 supervision frameworks, encompassing 13 domains of supervision: definitions; purpose and function; supervision models; contexts; content; Modes of engagement; Supervisor attributes; supervisory relationships; supervisor responsibilities; supervisee responsibilities; structures/process for supervision and support; facilitators and barriers; outcomes. The authors developed a reflective, supervision and support framework “Connecting Practice” that is practitioner centred, recognises the tacit and explicit knowledge that staff bring to the relationship, and enables them to identify their own goals and support networks within the context in which they work.
Research limitations/implications:
This is a thematic analysis of the literature which was argely based on an analysis of grey literature.
Social implications:
The resulting core domains of supervision provide an evidence-based foundation for the development of clinical supervision models which can be adapted to a range of contexts. Originality/value: Connecting Practice replaces traditional, more hierarchical models of supervision to put the practitioner at the centre of a personalised supervision and support network.

Purpose

– The purpose of this paper is to analyse existing clinical supervision frameworks to develop a supervision meta-model.

Design/methodology/approach

– This research involved a thematic analysis of existing supervision frameworks used to support allied health practitioners working in rural or remote settings in Australia to identify key domains of supervision which could form the basis of supervision framework in this context. A three-tiered sampling approach of the selection of supervision frameworks ensured the direct relevance of the final domains identified to Australian rural allied health practitioners, allied health practitioners generally and to the wider area of health supervision. Thematic analysis was undertaken by Framework analysis methodology using Mindmapping software. The results were organised into a new conceptual model which places the practitioner at the centre of supervision.

Findings

– The review included 17 supervision frameworks, encompassing 13 domains of supervision: definitions; purpose and function; supervision models; contexts; content; Modes of engagement; Supervisor attributes; supervisory relationships; supervisor responsibilities; supervisee responsibilities; structures/process for supervision and support; facilitators and barriers; outcomes. The authors developed a reflective, supervision and support framework “Connecting Practice” that is practitioner centred, recognises the tacit and explicit knowledge that staff bring to the relationship, and enables them to identify their own goals and support networks within the context in which they work.

Research limitations/implications

– This is a thematic analysis of the literature which was argely based on an analysis of grey literature.

Practical implications

– The resulting core domains of supervision provide an evidence-based foundation for the development of clinical supervision models which can be adapted to a range of contexts.

Social implications

– An outcome of this paper is a framework called Connecting Practice which organises the domains of supervision in a temporal way, separating those domains that can be modified to improve the supervision framework, from those which are less easily modifiable. This approach is important to help embed the implementation of supervision and support into organisational practice. This paper adds to the existing growing body of work around supervision by helping understand the domains or components that make up the supervisory experience.

Originality/value

– Connecting Practice replaces traditional, more hierarchical models of supervision to put the practitioner at the centre of a personalised supervision and support network.