Dataset Information

Barriers and facilitators to accessing effective clinical supervision and the implementation of a clinical supervision exchange model in the Australian alcohol and other drugs sector.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Internationally, 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.

Methods

Qualitative 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.

Results

Frontline 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 conclusions

The 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.

SUBMITTER: O'Donnell C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9310610 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aim and objectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate current advanced practice Masters students' experience of clinical supervision, to explore how clinical supervision works in practice and to identify students' perceptions of the facilitators and barriers to clinical supervision in their workplace.BackgroundAdvanced practitioners, and in particular nurses, play a pivotal role in delivering health care across acute and primary care settings. These non-medical professionals fulfil a rapidly expanding proportion of roles traditionally undertaken by medically qualified staff within the National Health Service in the United Kingdom and often lead specialist clinics and services. To prepare for the advanced practice role, individuals are required to undertake a Master's in advanced practice to develop the required skills and knowledge and work in clinical practice with a clinical assessor/supervisor to demonstrate competence and performance.DesignA mixed method study using an online descriptive cross-sectional survey and qualitative data were collected via focus groups and has been reported using the Good Reporting of a Mixed Methods Study checklist.ResultsA total of 79 students completed the online survey (from 145 AP students), a response rate of 55%. Most respondents were nurses (n = 73) with 49 (62%) in a formal advanced practice trainee role, and the majority believed their clinical supervisor had a good understanding of advanced practice and the advanced practice role. Two focus groups were held with 16 participants in total. Thematic analysis revealed five themes: (a) perceived level and amount of support from clinical supervisors, (b) skill level of clinical supervisors, (c) physicians and their perceptions on supervising, Advanced practitioners (d) clinical supervisors' preparation for the role and (e) transition from trainee to qualified advanced practitioner.ConclusionThe survey revealed that advanced practitioner students perceived that clinical supervisors and workplace colleagues had a good understanding of the advanced practice role with good levels of support in practice. A more coherent approach is required for clinical supervision and an implementation framework that can be formally evaluated.Relevance to clinical practiceSeveral significant barriers to clinical supervision for advanced practitioner students were identified, and there are currently more barriers (including COVID-19) than facilitators.

Project description:ObjectivesWe 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.DesignA rapid evidence review.Data sourcesFive databases (CINAHL, OVID Embase, OVID Medline, OVID PsycInfo and ProQuest) were searched to ensure inclusion and breadth of healthcare professionals.Eligibility criteriaStudies 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 synthesisAn 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsThis review identified several enablers of and barriers to effective clinical supervision and the subsequent benefits of effective clinical supervision in a healthcare setting.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a strong policy impetus for the One Health cross-sectoral approach to address the complex challenge of zoonotic diseases, particularly in low/lower middle income countries (LMICs). Yet the implementation of this approach in LMIC contexts such as India has proven challenging, due partly to the relatively limited practical guidance and understanding on how to foster and sustain cross-sector collaborations. This study addresses this gap by exploring the facilitators of and barriers to successful convergence between the human, animal and environmental health sectors in India.MethodsA mixed methods study was conducted using a detailed content review of national policy documents and in-depth semi-structured interview data on zoonotic disease management in India. In total, 29 policy documents were reviewed and 15 key informant interviews were undertaken with national and state level policymakers, disease managers and experts operating within the human-animal-environment interface of zoonotic disease control.ResultsOur findings suggest that there is limited policy visibility of zoonotic diseases, although global zoonoses, especially those identified to be of pandemic potential by international organisations (e.g. CDC, WHO and OIE) rather than local, high burden endemic diseases, have high recognition in the existing policy agenda setting. Despite the widespread acknowledgement of the importance of cross-sectoral collaboration, a myriad of factors operated to either constrain or facilitate the success of cross-sectoral convergence at different stages (i.e. information-sharing, undertaking common activities and merging resources and infrastructure) of cross-sectoral action. Importantly, participants identified the lack of supportive policies, conflicting departmental priorities and limited institutional capacities as major barriers that hamper effective cross-sectoral collaboration on zoonotic disease control. Building on existing informal inter-personal relationships and collaboration platforms were suggested by participants as the way forward.ConclusionOur findings point to the importance of strengthening existing national policy frameworks as a first step for leveraging cross-sectoral capacity for improved disease surveillance and interventions. This requires the contextual adaptation of the One Health approach in a manner that is sensitive to the underlying socio-political, institutional and cultural context that determines and shapes outcomes of cross-sector collaborative arrangements.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify barriers and facilitators to international implementation of a prospective system for standardized outcomes measurement in cleft care.DesignCleft teams that have implemented the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Standard Set for cleft care were invited to participate in this 2-part qualitative study: (1) an exploratory survey among clinicians, health information technology professionals, and project coordinators, and (2) semistructured interviews of project leads. Thematic content analysis was performed, with organization of themes according to the dimensions of the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework: reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance.ResultsFour cleft teams in Europe and North America participated in this study. Thirteen participants completed exploratory questionnaires and 5 interviewees participated in follow-up interviews. Survey responses and thematic content analysis revealed common facilitators and barriers to implementation at all sites. Teams reach patients either via email or during the clinic visit to capture patient-reported outcomes. Adopting routine data collection is enhanced by aligning priorities at the organizational and cleft team level. Streamlining workflows and developing an efficient data collection platform are necessary early on, followed by pilot testing or stepwise implementation. Regular meetings and financial resources are crucial for implementing, sustaining, analyzing collected data, and providing feedback to health care professionals and patients. Fostering patient-centered care was articulated as a positive outcome, whereas time presented challenges across all RE-AIM dimensions.ConclusionsIdentified themes can inform ongoing implementation efforts. Intentionally investing time to lay a sound foundation early on will benefit every phase of implementation and help overcome barriers such as lack of support or motivation.

Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:Children of Spanish-speaking caregivers face multiple barriers to care in academic medical centers. This study identified barriers and facilitators of health care and described use of health information technology in order to guide interventions and optimize services. METHODS:In-depth, audiotaped interviews were conducted with monolingual Spanish-speaking caregivers (N = 28) of children receiving care in academic medical center clinics using a structured interview guide. Interviews were transcribed in Spanish, and key themes were identified using thematic analysis. Illustrative quotes for each theme were translated into English. RESULTS:Language-specific barriers included arrival/registration occurring in English, lack of bilingual personnel, heavy reliance on interpreters, long wait times, and challenging phone communication. Non-language-specific barriers included medical center size and complexity, distance to services, lack of convenient and coordinated appointments, missing work/school, and financial barriers including insurance coverage or lack of citizenship. Caregivers identified interpreters, bilingual physicians and staff, and written materials in Spanish as facilitators of care. Most caregivers had internet access and expressed interest in health information technology, including patient portals, to communicate about their children's health. CONCLUSIONS:Caregivers of Spanish-speaking children encounter many language-specific barriers, which are compounded by non-language-specific barriers arising from complex health systems and social needs. Caregivers with limited resources described working hard to meet children's complex health care needs despite these barriers. Most caregivers had internet access and interest in patient portals. Academic medical centers may need multifaceted interventions that improve the availability of bilingual staff and interpreters and also address caregivers' social and informational needs.

Project description:BackgroundDespite recent incentives through Medicare (Australia's universal health insurance scheme) to increase retinal screening rates in primary care, comprehensive diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening has not been reached in Australia. The current study aimed to identify key factors affecting the delivery of diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening in Australian general practices.MethodsA descriptive qualitative study involving in-depth interviews was carried out from November 2019 to March 2020. Using purposive snowballing sampling, 15 general practitioners (GPs) were recruited from urban and rural general practices in New South Wales and Western Australia. A semi-structured interview guide was used to collect data from participants. All interviews were conducted over the phone by one facilitator, and each interview lasted up to 45 min. The Socio-Ecological Model was used to inform the content of the interview topic guides and subsequent data analysis. Recorded data were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was conducted to identify and classify recurrent themes.ResultsOf 15 GPs interviewed, 13 were male doctors, and the mean age was 54.7 ± 15.5 years. Seven participants were practising in urban areas, while eight were practising in regional or remote areas. All participants had access to a direct ophthalmoscope, but none owned retinal cameras. None of the participants reported performing DR screening. Only three participants were aware of the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) items 12,325 and 12,326 that allow GPs to bill for retinal screening. Seven themes, a combination of facilitators and barriers, emerged from interviews with the GPs. Despite the strong belief in their role in managing chronic diseases, barriers such as costs of retinal cameras, time constraints, lack of skills to make DR diagnosis, and unawareness of Medicare incentives for non-mydriatic retinal photography made it difficult to conduct DR screening in general practice. However, several enabling strategies to deliver DR screening within primary care include increasing GPs' access to continuing professional development, subsidising the cost of retinal cameras, and the need for a champion ace to take the responsibility of retinal photography.ConclusionThis study identified essential areas at the system level that require addressing to promote the broader implementation of DR screening, in particular, a nationwide awareness campaign to maximise the use of MBS items, improve GPs' competency, and subsidise costs of the retinal cameras for small and rural general practices.