Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Guthrie Hall, Box 351525, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
University of Denver, Graduate School of Social Work, Craig Hall, Room 471, 2148 S. High St, Denver, CO, 80208, USA.
Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 24;13(1):19. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0708-3.
Workplace-based clinical supervision as an implementation strategy to support evidence-based treatment (EBT) in public mental health has received limited research attention. A commonly provided infrastructure support, it may offer a relatively cost-neutral implementation strategy for organizations. However, research has not objectively examined workplace-based supervision of EBT and specifically how it might differ from EBT supervision provided in efficacy and effectiveness trials.
Data come from a descriptive study of supervision in the context of a state-funded EBT implementation effort. Verbal interactions from audio recordings of 438 supervision sessions between 28 supervisors and 70 clinicians from 17 public mental health organizations (in 23 offices) were objectively coded for presence and intensity coverage of 29 supervision strategies (16 content and 13 technique items), duration, and temporal focus. Random effects mixed models estimated proportion of variance in content and techniques attributable to the supervisor and clinician levels.
Interrater reliability among coders was excellent. EBT cases averaged 12.4 min of supervision per session. Intensity of coverage for EBT content varied, with some discussed frequently at medium or high intensity (exposure) and others infrequently discussed or discussed only at low intensity (behavior management; assigning/reviewing client homework). Other than fidelity assessment, supervision techniques common in treatment trials (e.g., reviewing actual practice, behavioral rehearsal) were used rarely or primarily at low intensity. In general, EBT content clustered more at the clinician level; different techniques clustered at either the clinician or supervisor level.
Workplace-based clinical supervision may be a feasible implementation strategy for supporting EBT implementation, yet it differs from supervision in treatment trials. Time allotted per case is limited, compressing time for EBT coverage. Techniques that involve observation of clinician skills are rarely used. Workplace-based supervision content appears to be tailored to individual clinicians and driven to some degree by the individual supervisor. Our findings point to areas for intervention to enhance the potential of workplace-based supervision for implementation effectiveness.
NCT01800266 , Clinical Trials, Retrospectively Registered (for this descriptive study; registration prior to any intervention [part of phase II RCT, this manuscript is only phase I descriptive results]).
作为支持基于证据的治疗(EBT)在公共心理健康中的实施策略,基于工作场所的临床监督受到的关注有限。作为一种常见的基础设施支持,它可能为组织提供一种相对成本中性的实施策略。然而,研究尚未客观地检查 EBT 的基于工作场所的监督,特别是它如何与疗效和有效性试验中提供的 EBT 监督不同。
数据来自一项针对州资助的 EBT 实施工作中监督情况的描述性研究。28 名监督者和来自 17 个公共心理健康组织的 70 名临床医生在 23 个办公室的 438 次监督会议的音频记录中的口头互动,客观地针对 29 种监督策略的存在和强度覆盖范围进行了编码(16 项内容和 13 项技术项目),时长和时间焦点。随机效应混合模型估计了内容和技术的方差在监督者和临床医生水平上的比例。
编码员之间的组内相关系数非常高。EBT 案例平均每次会议有 12.4 分钟的监督时间。EBT 内容的覆盖强度各不相同,有些内容经常以中等或高强度讨论(暴露),而有些内容则很少讨论或仅以低强度讨论(行为管理;分配/审查客户作业)。除了保真度评估外,治疗试验中常见的监督技术(例如,审查实际实践,行为排练)很少使用或主要以低强度使用。一般来说,EBT 内容更集中在临床医生一级;不同的技术则集中在临床医生或监督者一级。
基于工作场所的临床监督可能是支持 EBT 实施的可行实施策略,但与治疗试验中的监督不同。每个案例分配的时间有限,这压缩了 EBT 覆盖的时间。涉及观察临床医生技能的技术很少使用。基于工作场所的监督内容似乎针对个别临床医生,并在一定程度上受到个别监督者的驱动。我们的研究结果指出了干预领域,以增强基于工作场所的监督对实施效果的潜力。
NCT01800266,临床试验,回顾性注册(针对此描述性研究;在任何干预之前注册[第二阶段 RCT 的一部分,本手稿仅为第一阶段描述性结果])。