Effectiveness of clinical supervision of physiotherapists: a survey

2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 190 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Snowdon ◽  
Geraldine Millard ◽  
Nicholas F. Taylor

Objectives Limited literature exists on the practice of clinical supervision (CS) of professional physiotherapists despite current Australian safety and quality health standards stating that CS is to be provided to all physiotherapists. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of CS of physiotherapists working in an Australian public health service. Methods CS was measured using the allied health-specific 26-item modified Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale (MCSS-26). Subscales of the MCSS-26 were summed for three domain scores (normative, restorative and formative) and a total score was calculated, which was compared with the reported threshold score of 73 for effective supervision. Sixty registered physiotherapists (response rate 92%), working for a large metropolitan public health service, with six different site locations, completed the survey. Results The mean (± s.d.) total MCSS-26 score was 71.0 ± 14.3 (95% confidence interval (CI) 67.4–74.6). Hospital site was the only variable that had a significant effect on total MCSS-26 score (P = 0.005); there was no effect for supervisor or supervisee experience, or hospital setting (acute vs subacute). Physiotherapists scored a significantly lower mean percentage MCSS-26 score on the normative domain compared with the restorative domain (mean difference 7.8%; 95% CI 2.9–12.7; P = 0.002) and the formative domain (mean difference 9.6%; 95% CI 6.3–13.0; P < 0.001). Of the two subscales that form the normative domain, ‘finding time’ had a significantly lower mean percentage MCSS-26 score than ‘importance/value of CS’ (mean difference 35.4%; 95% CI 31.3–39.4; P < 0.001). Conclusions Within this publicly funded physiotherapy department there was uncertainty about the effectiveness of CS, with more than half the physiotherapists rating their supervision as less than effective, suggesting there is opportunity for improvement in the practice of physiotherapy CS. Physiotherapists scored lowest in the normative domain, indicating that they found it difficult to find time for CS. What is known about the topic? Previous research into CS for allied health professionals has shown that, on average, it is effective. However, these results cannot be generalised to specific allied health disciplines. Currently, the effectiveness of CS for physiotherapists is unknown. What does this paper add? This study is the first to investigate the effectiveness of CS in a large physiotherapy department of a publicly funded Australian healthcare service. What are the implications for practitioners? Requiring all physiotherapists to receive CS may not be useful if supervision is not effective. Finding time for CS appears to be the main barrier to effective CS. Focus should be directed towards developing a framework within which to practice CS that includes protected time for participation in CS.

2021 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 338
Author(s):  
Anna Novak ◽  
Danielle Hitch ◽  
Lyn Bongiovanni ◽  
Angela Mucic

ObjectiveTo describe the perceptions of healthcare workers employed at a metropolitan public health service, with respect to how they identify, manage and care for refugee patients. MethodsThis study surveyed healthcare workers using a cross-sectional, mixed methods descriptive design, which partially replicates a previous Australian study. A total of 215 responses to a brief online survey were received (n=48 medical, n=100 nursing and midwifery, n=50 allied health, n=4 other). ResultsNurses and allied health respondents were more likely to record working with refugees rarely or never (P=0.00). Most respondents (70.3%) identified no negative effects from working with refugees, and perceived this patient group enhanced (71.3%) their work. Insufficient identification, interpreter availability, education, healthcare worker capacity and providing culturally specific treatment were all identified as potential service barriers. Allied health respondents were more likely to report low confidence about working with refugees in general (P=0.04). Respondents with more than 10 years’ experience with refugees (P=0.02), and those with good self-perceived awareness of community services (P=0.01), were more confident in their ability to manage social issues. ConclusionsThis study suggests that contextual factors influence the perceptions of healthcare workers who provide care to refugee patients; however, communication, health literacy and healthcare worker capacity were consistently raised as key issues when working with refugees. What is known about the topic?Refugee and asylum seeker patients may present with complex health needs to any part of the Australian health system. The majority of previous research has occurred in primary care settings. What does this paper add?This study adds an acute and subacute perspective to the evidence base, and also includes medical respondents for the first time. Compared to previous research, respondents of this study saw refugee patients more frequently in their practice, and also reported fewer negative effects from working with them. Most demographic characteristics had no significant effect on worker-reported confidence in this study; however, greater experience of working with refugees and good self-perceived awareness of community services were both identified as positive influences. What are the implications for practitioners?Practitioners should prioritise remedying barriers that are consistently identified as affecting the service provided to refugee patients (communication, health literacy and healthcare worker capacity) as part of their quality and service improvement efforts.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document