Effectiveness of clinical supervision of physiotherapists: a survey.

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.

Effectiveness of Clinical Supervision of Allied Health Professionals: A Survey.

UNLABELLED: The practice of clinical supervision (CS) is recommended for allied health professionals. Preliminary evidence suggests that CS can be effective, but it is unknown for which allied health professions it is most effective. METHOD: The effectiveness of CS was measured using the allied health-specific modified Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale (MCSS-26). Subscales of the MCSS-26 were summed for three domain scores (normative, restorative and formative). RESULTS: One hundred ninety-six allied health professionals working in seven disciplines completed the survey. Allied health profession and supervisor experience had a significant effect on total MCSS-26 score (p=0.004 and 0.001, respectively). Allied health professions scored significantly lower in the normative domain than the restorative domain (mean diff 6.0%, 95%CI 3.3 to 8.7, p<0.001) and the formative domain (mean diff 7.9%, 95%CI 5.7 to 10.1, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A significant difference exists between allied health professions in the effectiveness of CS, with social workers, psychologists, and occupational therapists reporting effective supervision, while the effectiveness of CS for physiotherapists, dieticians, podiatrists, and speech-language pathologists was uncertain. All professions reported that CS was least effective in the normative domain, indicating that it was difficult to find time to participate in CS.