Search

Introduction: Many healthcare workers have switched from face-to-face clinical supervision to telesupervision since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the rise in prevalence of telesupervision and continuing remote working arrangements, telesupervision is no longer only limited to rural areas. As this remains an under-investigated area, this study aimed to explore supervisor and supervisee first hand experiences of effective telesupervision. Methods: A case study approach combining in-depth interviews of supervisors and supervisees, and document analysis of supervision documentation was used. De-identified interview data were analysed through a reflective thematic analysis approach. Results: Three supervisor-supervisee pairs from occupational therapy and physiotherapy provided data. Data analysis resulted in the development of four themes: Benefits vs limitations and risks, not often a solo endeavour, importance of face-to-face contact, and characteristics of effective telesupervision. Discussion: Findings of this study have confirmed that telesupervision is suited to supervisees and supervisors with specific characteristics, who can navigate the risks and limitations of this mode of clinical supervision. Healthcare organisations can ensure availability of evidence-informed training on effective telesupervision practices, as well as investigate the role of blended supervision models to mitigate some risks of telesupervision. Further studies could investigate the effectiveness of utilising additional professional support strategies that complement telesupervision, including in nursing and medicine, and ineffective telesupervision practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To review the impact of clinical supervision of post-registration/qualification healthcare professionals on healthcare organisational outcomes. Background: Clinical supervision is a professional support mechanism that benefits patients, healthcare professionals and healthcare organisations. Whilst evidence is growing on the impact of clinical supervision on patient and healthcare professional outcomes, the evidence base for the impact of clinical supervision on organisational outcomes remains weak. Methods: This review used a convergent segregated approach to synthesise and integrate quantitative and qualitative research findings, as per the Joanna Briggs Institute's recommendations for mixed methods systematic reviews. Databases searched included CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, PschINFO, and Scopus. Whilst a narrative synthesis was performed to present the findings of the quantitative and qualitative studies, the evidence from both quantitative and qualitative studies was subsequently integrated for a combined presentation. The review followed the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Results: Thirty-two studies including 27 quantitative, two qualitative and three mixed methods studies, were included in the review. The results of the quantitative analysis showed that effective clinical supervision was associated with lower burnout and greater staff retention, and effective supervisor was associated with lower burnout and greater job satisfaction. Qualitative findings showed that healthcare professionals believed that adequate clinical supervision could mitigate the risk of burnout, facilitate staff retention, and improve the work environment, while inadequate clinical supervision can lead to stress and burnout. The evidence from quantitative and qualitative studies were complementary of each other. Conclusion: Clinical supervision can have a variable effect on healthcare organisational outcomes. The direction of this effect appears to be influenced by the effectiveness of both the clinical supervision provided and that of the clinical supervisor. This highlights the need for organisations to invest in high quality supervision practices if maximal gains from clinical supervision are to be attained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medical training is a long process that is not complete until doctors finish specialty training. Getting into specialty training is challenging because of strong competition for limited places, depending on doctors' chosen field. This may have a negative impact on doctor well-being and reduce the efficiency of the medical training system. This study explored the barriers of pre-registrar (junior) doctors getting into specialty training programs to inform tailored support and re-design of speciality entry systems. Methods: From March to October 2019, we conducted 32 semi-structured interviews with early-career doctors in Australia, who had chosen their specialty field, and were either seeking entry, currently undertaking or had recently completed various fields of specialty training. We sought reflections about barriers and major influences to getting into specialty training. In comparing and contrasting generated themes, different patterns emerged from doctors targeting traditionally non-competitive specialty fields like General Practice (GP) and other specialties (typically more competitive fields). As a result we explored the data in this dichotomy. Results: Doctors targeting entry to GP specialties had relatively seamless training entry and few specific barriers. In contrast, those pursuing other specialties, regardless of which ones, relayed multiple barriers of: Navigating an unpredictable and complex system with informal support/guidance; Connecting to the right people/networks for relevant experience; Pro-actively planning and differentiating skills with recurrent failure of applications. Conclusions: Our exploratory study suggests that doctors wanting to get into non-GP specialty training may experience strong barriers, potentially over multiple years, with the capacity to threaten their morale and resilience. These could be addressed by a clearinghouse of information about different speciality programs, broader selection criteria, feedback on applications and more formal guidance and professional supports. The absence of challenges identified for doctors seeking entry to GP could be used to promote increased uptake of GP careers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The benefits of clinical supervision are more pronounced for health professionals in rural and remote areas. Most clinical supervision studies to date have occurred in metropolitan centres and have used the survey methodology to capture participant experiences. There is a lack of qualitative research that captures participants’ lived experiences with clinical supervision at the frontline. Methods: Participants were recruited from rural and remote sites of two Australian states using a purposive maximum variation sampling strategy. Data were collected through individual, semi-structured interviews with participants. Data were analysed using content analysis and themes were developed. Sixteen participants from six professions completed the interviews. Results: Eight themes were developed including the content of supervision, context of supervision, value of supervision, increased need for professional support and unique characteristics of rural and remote clinical supervision. Conclusions: This study has highlighted the value of clinical supervision for the rural and remote health professional workforce. Furthermore, it has shed light on the unique characteristics of clinical supervision in this population. This information can be used by organisations and health professionals to ensure clinical supervision partnerships are effective thereby enhancing rural and remote workforce recruitment and retention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]