Pollock Alex, Campbell Pauline, Deery Ruth, Fleming Mick, Rankin Jean, Sloan Graham, Cheyne Helen
Nursing Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, UK.
Institute of Healthcare Policy and Practice, University of the West of Scotland, UK.
J Adv Nurs. 2017 Aug;73(8):1825-1837. doi: 10.1111/jan.13253. Epub 2017 Feb 8.
The aim of this study was to systematically review evidence relating to clinical supervision for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals.
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.
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.
Electronic databases were searched from 2005 - September 2015, limited to English-language peer-reviewed publications.
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.
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.
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.
本研究旨在系统评价与护士、助产士及专职医疗人员临床督导相关的证据。
自1902年起，法定督导一直是英国助产士的一项要求，但这一情况即将改变。与护士及专职医疗人员临床督导相关的证据可为助产士临床督导的新模式提供参考。
采用应急设计进行系统评价，包括一张与临床督导相关研究的广泛图谱以及两项针对特定评价问题的重点综合分析。
检索了2005年至2015年9月的电子数据库，仅限于英文同行评审出版物。
综合分析1纳入了评估临床督导有效性的系统评价。综合分析2纳入了包括临床督导干预描述的原始研究。使用偏倚风险工具判断评价质量，并将评价结果汇总成表格。从综合分析2纳入的研究中提取描述临床督导干预关键组成部分的数据，使用报告框架进行分类并提供叙述性说明。
综合分析1纳入了10项评价；这些评价表明缺乏令人信服的实证证据，且对临床督导的性质缺乏共识。综合分析2纳入了19项原始研究；这些研究突出了所实施干预措施之间缺乏一致性和存在较大差异。
尽管证据不足以直接指导框架的选择和实施，但有限的现有证据可为英国助产士临床督导新模式的设计提供参考。
