A mixed methods evaluation of clinical supervision with a metropolitan public health service

Abstract

Abstract Objective: The aim of this study was to describe the effectiveness and quality of clinical supervision for Allied Health clinicians across nine disciplines, from the perspective of supervisees and supervisors. In a metropolitan public health service. Methods: Cross-sectional, quantitative descriptive design utilising online survey data collection via the MCSS-26 (previously known as the Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale). The survey was distributed online, and all responses were anonymous. Descriptive and comparative analyses were undertaken to interpret the data. Results: A total of 164 allied health and community services health clinicians responded, demonstrating a response rate of 36%. The majority of participants were female, in Grade 2 positions, and received clinical supervision monthly. Patient-related issues were discussed most frequently during these sessions. The delivery of most clinical supervision continues to utilise traditional one-to-one formats, although some professions (such as physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and nursing) experimented with alternative models. While total scores suggested the participants experienced effective supervision, there was significant variation across disciplines and grades. Moderate to strong correlations were also found between MCSS-26 subscale and total scores and overall satisfaction with clinical supervision. Conclusion: These findings emphasise the importance of tailored approaches to clinical supervision, considering the varied needs and perceptions of different individuals, professions and grade levels.