Enablers and barriers to effective clinical supervision in the workplace: a rapid evidence review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
We aimed to review the international literature to understand the enablers of and barriers to effective clinical supervision in the workplace and identify the benefits of effective clinical supervision.Design
A rapid evidence review.Data sources
Five databases (CINAHL, OVID Embase, OVID Medline, OVID PsycInfo and ProQuest) were searched to ensure inclusion and breadth of healthcare professionals.Eligibility criteria
Studies identifying enablers and barriers to effective clinical supervision across healthcare professionals in a Western context between 1 January 2009 and 12 March 2019.Data extraction and synthesis
An extraction framework with a detailed inclusion/exclusion criteria to ensure rigour was used to extract data. Data were analysed using a thematic qualitative synthesis. These themes were used to answer the research objectives.Results
The search identified 15 922 papers, reduced to 809 papers following the removal of duplicates and papers outside the inclusion criteria, with 135 papers being included in the full review. Enablers identified included regular supervision, occurs within protected time, in a private space and delivered flexibly. Additional enablers included supervisees being offered a choice of supervisor; supervision based on mutual trust and a positive relationship; a cultural understanding between supervisor and supervisee; a shared understanding of the purpose of supervision, based on individual needs, focused on enhancing knowledge and skills; training and feedback being provided for supervisors; and use of a mixed supervisor model, delivered by several supervisors, or by those trained to manage the overlapping (and potentially conflicting) needs of the individual and the service. Barriers included a lack of time, space and trust. A lack of shared understanding to the purpose of the supervision, and a lack of ongoing support and engagement from leadership and organisations were also found to be barriers to effective clinical supervision.Conclusions
This review identified several enablers of and barriers to effective clinical supervision and the subsequent benefits of effective clinical supervision in a healthcare setting.
SUBMITTER: Rothwell C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8479981 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Integrated care refers to person-centered and coordinated, health and social care, and community services. Integrated care systems are partnerships of organizations that deliver health and care services which were placed on a statutory footing in England, April 2022. Due to the need for fast, accessible, and relevant evidence, a rapid review was conducted according to World Health Organization methods to determine barriers and enablers of integrated care across the United Kingdom, 2018-2022. Nine databases were searched for review articles reporting evaluation of integrated care interventions involving medical (clinical and diagnostic) and nonmedical (public health services and community-based or social care/person-centred care) approaches, quality checked with the Critical Appraisal Skills Program qualitative checklist. OpenGrey and hand searches were used to identify grey literature, quality checked with the Authority, Accuracy, Coverage, Objectivity, Date, and Significance checklist. Thirty-four reviews and 21 grey literature reports fitted inclusion criteria of adult physical/mental health outcomes/multiple morbidities. Thematic analysis revealed six themes (collaborative approach; costs; evidence and evaluation; integration of care; professional roles; service user factors) with 20 subthemes including key barriers (cost effectiveness; effectiveness of integrated care; evaluation methods; focus of evidence; future research; impact of integration) and enablers (accessing care; collaboration and partnership; concept of integration; inter-professional relationships; person-centered ethos). Findings indicated a paucity of robust research to evaluate such interventions and lack of standardized methodology to assess cost effectiveness, although there is growing interest in co-production that has engendered information sharing and reduced duplication, and inter-professional collaborations that have bridged task-related gaps and overlaps. The importance of identifying elements of integrated care associated with successful outcomes and determining sustainability of interventions meeting joined-up care and preventive population health objectives was highlighted.
| S-EPMC10794528 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aims/questionsTo explore the barriers and facilitators to nurses accessing clinical supervision; explore the barriers and facilitators to organizations implementing clinical supervision and capture what skills nurses require to facilitate clinical supervision.DesignScoping review of peer-reviewed research and grey literature.Data sourcesCINAHL, Medline, PsychINFO and Scopus were searched for relevant papers published between 1990 and 2020. Google, Google Scholar, OpenGrey & EThOS were used to search for grey literature.Review methodsPRISMA-ScR guidelines were used during the literature review process. Eighty-seven papers were included, and data were extracted from each paper using a standardized form. Data synthesis was undertaken using Seidel's analytical framework.ResultsFive themes were identified: Definitions and Models, (Mis) Trust and the Language of Supervision, Alternative Parallel Forums and Support Mechanisms, Time and Cost and Skills required.ConclusionSince its inception in the 1990s, clinical supervision has long been regarded as a supportive platform for nurses to reflect on and develop their practice. However, this review highlights that despite an awareness of the skills required for nurses to undertake clinical supervision, and the facilitators for nurses to access and organizations to implement clinical supervision, there have been persistent barriers to implementation. This review identifies these persistent factors as 'barriers to overcoming the barriers' in the clinical supervision landscape. These require critical consideration to contribute towards moving clinical supervision forward in the spirit of its original intentions.ImpactThis review progresses the debate on clinical supervision through critically analysing the barriers to overcoming the barriers. To this end, the review is designed to stimulate critical discussions amongst nurses in different clinical spaces and key stakeholders such as policy makers and regulatory bodies for the nursing profession.
| S-EPMC9546137 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionInternationally, clinical/practice supervision is considered essential in the development and maintenance of professional proficiency across health disciplines. Among alcohol and other drug (AOD) workers, however, access to effective clinical supervision is limited. This study examined perceived barriers and facilitators to: (i) AOD workers accessing effective clinical supervision; and (ii) effective implementation of a clinical supervision exchange model in the AOD sector.MethodsQualitative interviews with frontline workers (n = 10) and managers (n = 11) employed by eight government and non-government AOD treatment services in Brisbane, Australia were undertaken. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and data were thematically analysed.ResultsFrontline workers and managers shared similar views. Reported barriers and facilitators to accessing effective clinical supervision included limited time, the high cost of providers, availability of skilled clinical supervisors, supervisor-supervisee matching and supervision modality. Participants considered the implementation of a clinical supervision exchange model to be a resource-effective strategy to increase access to external, individual clinical supervision while also exposing workers to a greater diversity of perspectives, increasing sector collaboration and improving the perceived value of clinical supervision among the workforce.Discussion and conclusionsThe findings of this study suggest that limited time, cost and availability of skilled supervisors are primary barriers to AOD workers accessing high-quality clinical supervision. Implementation of a clinical supervision exchange model is perceived by frontline workers and service delivery managers to be a resource-effective strategy for increasing access to high-quality clinical supervision among workers.
| S-EPMC9310610 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe study aimed to identify the common gaps in skills and self-efficacy for diabetes self-management and explore other factors which serve as enablers of, and barriers to, achieving optimal diabetes self-management. The information gathered could provide health professionals with valuable insights to achieving better health outcomes with self-management education and support for diabetes patients.MethodsInternational online survey and telephone interviews were conducted on adults who have type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The survey inquired about their skills and self-efficacy in diabetes self-management, while the interviews assessed other enablers of, and barriers to, diabetes self-management. Surveys were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Interviews were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.ResultsSurvey participants (N = 217) had type 1 diabetes (38.2%) or type 2 diabetes (61.8%), with a mean age of 44.56 SD 11.51 and were from 4 continents (Europe, Australia, Asia, America). Identified gaps in diabetes self-management skills included the ability to: recognize and manage the impact of stress on diabetes, exercise planning to avoid hypoglycemia and interpreting blood glucose pattern levels. Self-efficacy for healthy coping with stress and adjusting medications or food intake to reach ideal blood glucose levels were minimal. Sixteen participants were interviewed. Common enablers of diabetes self-management included: (i) the will to prevent the development of diabetes complications and (ii) the use of technological devices. Issues regarding: (i) frustration due to dynamic and chronic nature of diabetes (ii) financial constraints (iii) unrealistic expectations and (iv) work and environment-related factors limited patients' effective self-management of diabetes.ConclusionsEducational reinforcement using technological devices such as mobile application has been highlighted as an enabler of diabetes self-management and it could be employed as an intervention to alleviate identified gaps in diabetes self-management. Furthermore, improved approaches that address financial burden, work and environment-related factors as well as diabetes distress are essential for enhancing diabetes self-management.
| S-EPMC6550406 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify current, policy-relevant evidence about barriers and enablers associated with referral, uptake and completion of lifestyle modification programmes (LMPs) for secondary prevention of chronic disease in adults.DesignA rapid review, co-designed with policymakers, of peer-reviewed and grey literature using a modified Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO and CINAHL were searched for relevant studies and literature reviews. Grey literature was identified through Advanced Google searching and targeted searching of international health departments' and non-government organisations' websites.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesDocuments published 2010-2020, from high-income countries, reporting on programmes that included referral of adults with chronic disease to an LMP by a health professional (HP).Data extraction and synthesisData from grey and peer-reviewed literature were extracted by two different reviewers. Extracted data were inductively coded around emergent themes. Regular meetings of the review group ensured consistency of study selection and synthesis.ResultsTwenty-nine documents were included: 14 grey literature, 11 empirical studies and four literature reviews. Key barriers to HPs referring patients included inadequate HP knowledge about LMPs, perceptions of poor effectiveness of LMPs and perceptions that referral to LMPs was not part of their role. Patient barriers to uptake and completion included poor accessibility and lack of support to engage with the LMPs. Enablers to HP referral included training/education, effective interdisciplinary communication and influential programme advocates. Support to engage with LMPs after HP referral, educational resources for family members and easy accessibility were key enablers to patient engagement with LMPs.ConclusionsFactors related to HPs' ability and willingness to make referrals are important for the implementation of LMPs, and need to be coupled with support for patients to engage with programmes after referral. These factors should be addressed when implementing LMPs to maximise their impact.
| S-EPMC8006838 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:While clinical pathways have the potential to improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare costs, their true impact has been limited by variable implementation strategies and suboptimal research designs. This paper explores a comprehensive set of factors perceived by emergency department staff and administrative leads to influence clinical pathway implementation within the complex and dynamic environments of community emergency department settings. METHODS:This descriptive, qualitative study involved emergency health professionals and administrators of 15 community hospitals across Ontario, Canada. As part of our larger cluster randomized controlled trial, each site was in the preparation phase to implement one of two clinical pathways: pediatric asthma or pediatric vomiting and diarrhea. Data were collected from three sources: (i) a mediated group discussion with site champions during the project launch meeting; (ii) a semi-structured site visit of each emergency department; and (iii) key informant interviews with an administrative lead from each hospital. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used to guide the interviews and thematically analyze the data. Domains within each major theme were then mapped onto the COM-B model-capability, opportunity, and motivation-of the Behaviour Change Wheel. RESULTS:Seven discrete themes and 58 subthemes were identified that comprised a set of barriers and enablers relevant to the planned clinical pathway implementation. Within two themes, three distinct levels of impact emerged, namely (i) the individual health professional, (ii) the emergency department team, and (iii) the broader hospital context. The TDF domains occurring most frequently were Memory, Attention and Decision Processes, Environmental Context and Resources, Behavioural Regulation, and Reinforcement. Mapping these barriers and enablers onto the COM-B model provided an organized perspective on how these issues may be interacting. Several factors were viewed as both negative and positive across different perspectives. Two of the seven themes were limited to one component, while four involved all three components of the COM-B model. CONCLUSIONS:Using a theory-based approach ensured systematic and comprehensive identification of relevant barriers and enablers to clinical pathway implementation in ED settings. The COM-B system of the Behaviour Change Wheel provided a useful perspective on how these factors might interact to effect change. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01815710 .
| S-EPMC6233585 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Osteoarthritis is a highly prevalent and disabling condition. Primary care management of osteoarthritis is generally suboptimal despite evidence for several modestly effective interventions and the availability of high-quality clinical practice guidelines. This report describes a planned study to synthesise the views of primary care clinicians on the barriers and enablers to following recommended management of osteoarthritis, with the aim of providing new interpretations that may facilitate the uptake of recommended treatments, and in turn improve patient care.A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. 5 databases will be searched using key search terms for qualitative research, evidence-based practice, clinical practice guidelines, osteoarthritis, beliefs, perceptions, barriers, enablers and adherence. A priori inclusion/exclusion criteria include availability of data from primary care clinicians, reports on views regarding management of osteoarthritis, and studies using qualitative methods for both data collection and analysis. At least 2 independent reviewers will identify eligible reports, conduct a critical appraisal of study conduct, extract data and synthesise reported findings and interpretations. Synthesis will follow thematic analysis within a grounded theory framework of inductive coding and iterative theme identification. The reviewers plus co-authors will contribute to the meta-synthesis to find new themes and theories. The Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) approach will be used to determine a confidence profile of each finding from the meta-synthesis. The protocol has been registered on PROSPERO and is reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines.Ethical approval is not required. The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The results will help to inform policy and practice and assist in the optimisation of management for people with osteoarthritis.CRD42015027543.
| S-EPMC4885472 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundAdoption of contemporary evidence-based guidelines for acute stroke management is often delayed due to a range of key enablers and barriers. Recent reviews on such barriers focus mainly on specific acute stroke therapies or generalised stroke care guidelines. This review examined the overall barriers and enablers, as perceived by health professionals which affect how evidence-based practice guidelines (stroke unit care, thrombolysis administration, aspirin usage and decompressive surgery) for acute stroke care are adopted in hospital settings.MethodologyA systematic search of databases was conducted using MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database from 1990 to 2016. The population of interest included health professionals working clinically or in roles responsible for acute stroke care. There were no restrictions to the study designs. A quality appraisal tool for qualitative studies by the Joanna Briggs Institute and another for quantitative studies by the Centre for Evidence-Based Management were used in the present study. A recent checklist to classify barriers and enablers to health professionals' adherence to evidence-based practice was also used.ResultsTen studies met the inclusion criteria out of a total of 9832 search results. The main barriers or enablers identified included poor organisational or institutional level support, health professionals' limited skills or competence to use a particular therapy, low level of awareness, familiarity or confidence in the effectiveness of a particular evidence-based therapy, limited medical facilities to support evidence uptake, inadequate peer support among health professionals', complex nature of some stroke care therapies or guidelines and patient level barriers.ConclusionsDespite considerable evidence supporting various specific therapies for stroke care, uptake of these therapies is compromised by barriers across organisational, patients, guideline interventions and health professionals' domains. As a result, we recommend that future interventions and health policy directions should be informed by these findings in order to optimise uptake of best practice acute stroke care. Further studies from low- to middle-income countries are needed to understand the barriers and enablers in such settings.Trial registrationThe review protocol was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews, PROSPERO 2015 (Registration Number: CRD42015023481 ).
| S-EPMC5460544 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Kangaroo mother care (KMC) is an evidence-based approach to reducing mortality and morbidity in preterm infants. Although KMC is a key intervention package in newborn health initiatives, there is limited systematic information available on the barriers to KMC practice that mothers and other stakeholders face while practicing KMC. This systematic review sought to identify the most frequently reported barriers to KMC practice for mothers, fathers, and health practitioners, as well as the most frequently reported enablers to practice for mothers. We searched nine electronic databases and relevant reference lists for publications reporting barriers or enablers to KMC practice. We identified 1,264 unique publications, of which 103 were included based on pre-specified criteria. Publications were scanned for all barriers / enablers. Each publication was also categorized based on its approach to identification of barriers / enablers, and more weight was assigned to publications which had systematically sought to understand factors influencing KMC practice. Four of the top five ranked barriers to KMC practice for mothers were resource-related: "Issues with the facility environment / resources," "negative impressions of staff attitudes or interactions with staff," "lack of help with KMC practice or other obligations," and "low awareness of KMC / infant health." Considering only publications from low- and middle-income countries, "pain / fatigue" was ranked higher than when considering all publications. Top enablers to practice were included "mother-infant attachment" and "support from family, friends, and other mentors." Our findings suggest that mother can understand and enjoy KMC, and it has benefits for mothers, infants, and families. However, continuous KMC may be physically and emotionally difficult, and often requires support from family members, health practitioners, or other mothers. These findings can serve as a starting point for researchers and program implementers looking to improve KMC programs.
| S-EPMC4439040 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A pressing goal in global development and other sectors is often to understand what drives people's behaviors, and how to influence them. Yet designing behavior change interventions is often an unsystematic process, hobbled by insufficient understanding of contextual and perceptual behavioral drivers and a narrow focus on limited research methods to assess them. We propose a toolkit (CUBES) of two solutions to help programs arrive at more effective interventions. First, we introduce a novel framework of behavior, which is a practical tool for programs to structure potential drivers and match corresponding interventions. This evidence-based framework was developed through extensive cross-sectoral literature research and refined through application in large-scale global development programs. Second, we propose a set of descriptive, experimental, and simulation approaches that can enhance and expand the methods commonly used in global development. Since not all methods are equally suited to capture the different types of drivers of behavior, we present a decision aid for method selection. We recommend that existing commonly used methods, such as observations and surveys, use CUBES as a scaffold and incorporate validated measures of specific types of drivers in order to comprehensively test all the potential components of a target behavior. We also recommend under-used methods from sectors such as market research, experimental psychology, and decision science, which programs can use to extend their toolkit and test the importance and impact of key enablers and barriers. The CUBES toolkit enables programs across sectors to streamline the process of conceptualizing, designing, and optimizing interventions, and ultimately to change behaviors and achieve targeted outcomes.
| S-EPMC6601426 | biostudies-literature