A systematic review of evidence relating to clinical supervision for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to systematically review evidence relating to clinical supervision for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals.

Background: Since 1902 statutory supervision has been a requirement for UK midwives, but this is due to change. Evidence relating to clinical supervision for nurses and allied health professions could inform a new model of clinical supervision for midwives.

Design: A systematic review with a contingent design, comprising a broad map of research relating to clinical supervision and two focussed syntheses answering specific review questions.

Data sources: Electronic databases were searched from 2005 - September 2015, limited to English-language peer-reviewed publications.

Review methods: Systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of clinical supervision were included in Synthesis 1. Primary research studies including a description of a clinical supervision intervention were included in Synthesis 2. Quality of reviews were judged using a risk of bias tool and review results summarized in tables. Data describing the key components of clinical supervision interventions were extracted from studies included in Synthesis 2, categorized using a reporting framework and a narrative account provided.

Results: Ten reviews were included in Synthesis 1; these demonstrated an absence of convincing empirical evidence and lack of agreement over the nature of clinical supervision. Nineteen primary studies were included in Synthesis 2; these highlighted a lack of consistency and large variations between delivered interventions.

Conclusion: Despite insufficient evidence to directly inform the selection and implementation of a framework, the limited available evidence can inform the design of a new model of clinical supervision for UK-based midwives.

Keywords: allied health professionals; clinical supervision; literature review; midwives; nurses; systematic review.