Tue, Sep 17, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 8, Issue 2 (Spring 2022)
JCCNC 2022, 8(2): 69-78 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ernawati E, Damris D M, Revis A, Elrifda S. How Effective is Clinical Supervision in Nursing? A Systematic Review. JCCNC 2022; 8 (2) :69-78
URL: http://jccnc.iums.ac.ir/article-1-357-en.html
URL: http://jccnc.iums.ac.ir/article-1-357-en.html
1- Department of Mathematics and Science Program, Faculty of Mathematics and Science, Jambi University, Jambi, Indonesia. , ernawati.syarif.poltek@gmail.com
2- Department of Chemical Environment, Faculty of Sciences Technology, Universitas Jambi, Indonesia.
3- Department of Biology, Faculty of Sciences Technology, Universitas Jambi, Indonesia.
4- Department of Nursing, Faculty of Health Polytechnic, Universitas Jambi, Indonesia.
2- Department of Chemical Environment, Faculty of Sciences Technology, Universitas Jambi, Indonesia.
3- Department of Biology, Faculty of Sciences Technology, Universitas Jambi, Indonesia.
4- Department of Nursing, Faculty of Health Polytechnic, Universitas Jambi, Indonesia.
Abstract: (2497 Views)
Background: Clinical Supervision (CS) is a process of learning and professional support for nurses and developing nursing practice through regular discussions with experienced and skillful colleagues. However, it remains challenging to ensure the effectiveness of its implementation across all healthcare organizations. This systematic review study aims to answer the question: What are the effects of CS on nurses’ perceptions and performance?.
Methods: This systematic review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and using a mixed method. The search was conducted in the online databases including PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane library, Wiley Online Library, and ProQuest for studies related to effectiveness of CS published from 2000 to 2021. Additional studies were also added by reference/citation tracking. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the McMaster Critical Review Form for both quantitative and qualitative studies (Version 2.0). Their risk of bias was assessed independently by two authors using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias assessment tool. The studies were qualitatively analyzed by the classification of their main findings, study design, and CS methods/models.
Results: Of 1041 potentially relevant studies, 237 were removed due to being duplicates. After screening the titles and abstracts of the remaining, 793 removed and finally 11 studies that met the inclusion criteria were entered into the review process. The design of the studies was quasi experimental (n=3), randomized controlled trial (n=1), cross-sectional (n=5), and qualitative (n=2). All the included studies showed the significant effectiveness of CS presented in various methods used such as one-on-one CS and group CS. The CS increased nurses’ peer support and stress relief (restorative function), professional accountability (normative function) and skills and knowledge (formative function).
Conclusion: CS is significantly effective in nursing practice. There is a growing need in the future for more experimental studies, taking into account the use of more appropriate methodologies.
Methods: This systematic review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and using a mixed method. The search was conducted in the online databases including PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane library, Wiley Online Library, and ProQuest for studies related to effectiveness of CS published from 2000 to 2021. Additional studies were also added by reference/citation tracking. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the McMaster Critical Review Form for both quantitative and qualitative studies (Version 2.0). Their risk of bias was assessed independently by two authors using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias assessment tool. The studies were qualitatively analyzed by the classification of their main findings, study design, and CS methods/models.
Results: Of 1041 potentially relevant studies, 237 were removed due to being duplicates. After screening the titles and abstracts of the remaining, 793 removed and finally 11 studies that met the inclusion criteria were entered into the review process. The design of the studies was quasi experimental (n=3), randomized controlled trial (n=1), cross-sectional (n=5), and qualitative (n=2). All the included studies showed the significant effectiveness of CS presented in various methods used such as one-on-one CS and group CS. The CS increased nurses’ peer support and stress relief (restorative function), professional accountability (normative function) and skills and knowledge (formative function).
Conclusion: CS is significantly effective in nursing practice. There is a growing need in the future for more experimental studies, taking into account the use of more appropriate methodologies.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
General
Received: 2022/02/14 | Accepted: 2022/04/6 | Published: 2022/05/1
Received: 2022/02/14 | Accepted: 2022/04/6 | Published: 2022/05/1
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Copyright © The Author(s);
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-By-NC), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
Contact Information
