Available online 17 March 2023, 103606
Author links open overlay panel, , AbstractAimThis systematic review will identify, appraise, and synthesise the best available qualitative studies exploring nurses’ experiences of peer group supervision. The review purpose draws from the synthesised evidence recommendations to enhance policy and implementation of peer group supervision in practice.
BackgroundClinical Supervision is increasing in acceptance as a means of professional and best practice support in nursing. Peer group supervision is a non-hierarchical, leaderless model of clinical supervision delivery and is an option for implementation by nursing management when prioritising staff support with limited resources. This systematic review will provide a synthesis of the qualitative literature regarding the nursing peer group supervision experience. Understanding the experience of peer group supervision from those participating may provide constructive insights regarding implementation of this practice to benefit both nurse and patient driven outcomes.
DesignIncluded are peer reviewed journals focused on nurses’ experiences of participating in peer group supervision. Participants are registered nurses of any designation. Qualitative articles, written in English and relating to any area of nursing practice and/or speciality are included.
The standards of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement were used to guide the review. Two investigators independently screened titles, abstracts and selected full text studies describing the experience of peer group supervision. Pre-designed data extraction tools were utilised, and the review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute qualitative meta-aggregation approach with a hermeneutic interpretive analysis.
ResultsResults identified seven studies that met the inclusion criteria. A total of 52 findings that described the experiences of nursing peer group supervision are synthesised into eight categories. Four overarching synthesised findings resulted: 1. facilitating professional growth 2. trusting the group 3. professional learning experience and 4. shared experiences. Benefits such as sharing of experiences whilst receiving feedback and support were identified. Challenges identified related to group processes.
ConclusionsThe paucity of international research into nursing peer group supervision poses challenges for nurse decision makers. Significantly, this review provides insight into the value of peer group supervision for nurses regardless of clinical context and setting. The ability to share and reflect with nursing peers enhances both personal and professional aspects of practice. The worth of the peer group supervision model varied across studies however the outcomes provided important insights into facilitating professional growth, enabling a space to share experiences and reflect, and to build teams where trust and respect develops in groups.
Section snippetsBackgroundThe recent Covid-19 pandemic has seen nurses face challenges never before encountered in their careers (Catton, 2020, Turale et al., 2020). As professionals, nurses rise to meet challenges but require personal and professional support to optimally care for themselves and their patients (Catton, 2020, Dyson and Lamb, 2021, Fernández‐Castillo et al., 2021; Jackson et al., 2020). Times of crisis are when nurses require the most support to provide best practice and quality patient care (Dilworth et
Protocol registrationThe systematic review was conducted according to the registered Joanna Briggs Institute protocol. The protocol was registered with reporting for systematic reviews. (Reporting number to be included post review)
Inclusion and exclusion criteriaQualitative research from peer reviewed journals that met the following inclusion criteria were contained within the review: 1. English language studies, where the participants were adults with no restriction on age, gender, ethnicity, clinical practice setting, specialty, or designation.
Study selectionThe initial search identified 259 studies. This was reduced to 135 after duplicates were removed. These studies were screened for title and abstract. From these, 75 studies were full text screened. One was a poster presentation; 65 were excluded initially, however it was noted during the critical appraisal phase that a further three did not meet the inclusion criteria and needed to be excluded (See Appendix 5 for excluded studies and rationales). Five studies and two narrative/opinion papers
DiscussionThe systematic review examined the experiences of nurses’ participating in peer group supervision. The review identified four synthesised findings. The first finding identified the personal and professional benefits to nurses participating in peer group supervision. This is consistent with peer group supervision studies in the helping professions (Atik and Erkan Atik, 2019, Dungey et al., 2020, Nickson et al., 2016).
The benefits vary greatly from person to person and are not always guaranteed.
ConclusionsThis systematic review demonstrated that whilst there is a plethora of research on nursing clinical supervision there is a paucity on nursing peer group supervision. It was noted that studies regarding the experiences of nurses primarily focused on group supervision with a supervisor (Johnson, 2016). There were limited studies that purely explored nurses’ experiences from a peer led approach.
It is interesting that only seven studies were located from the literature and only a few of these
Funding sourcesThis research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not for profit sectors.
Declaration of Competing InterestThe authors declare the following personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Conflict of interest. There is potential for conflict of interest in conducting the systematic review. There were only seven (7) articles included in the review and one (1) was authored by the review research team. The risk of bias was mitigated through the use of the robust PRISMA reporting guideline and the use of a qualitative meta-aggregation approach as outlined by the Joanna
Conflict of interestPotential conflict of interest is noted in that an article by the first author is included in the study. However, the risk of bias is mitigated using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist and by independent reviewers.
References (62)K. Bronshteyn et al.Using Google Scholar at the Reference DeskJournal of library administration
(2008)
C. Bulman et al.Reflective practice in nursing(2013)
N. Buus et al.Resistance to group clinical supervision: A semistructured interview study of non‐participating mental health nursing staff membersInternational journal of mental health nursing
(2018)
V. Calcaterra et al.Helping each other: a peer supervision group with facilitators of mutual aid groupsSocial work with groups (New York. 1978), 43(4), 351-364
(2020)
H. CattonNursing in the COVID‐19 pandemic and beyond: protecting, saving, supporting and honouring nursesInternational nursing review
(2020)
J. Cookson et al.Provision of clinical supervision for staff working in mental health servicesMental health practice
(2014)
E. CounselmanIn Consultation, Peer Supervision Groups that Work: Three steps that make a differencePsychotherapy networker
(2013)
J.R. Cutcliffe et al.Routledge handbook of clinical supervision: fundamental international themes(2011)
J.R. Cutcliffe et al.A systematic review of clinical supervision evaluation studies in nursingInternational journal of mental health nursing
(2018)
M. Daher et al.Experience and meaning in qualitative research: A conceptual review and a methodological device proposalForum, qualitative social research
(2017)
S. Dilworth et al.Finding a way forward: A literature review on the current debates around clinical supervisionContemporary nurse: a journal for the Australian nursing profession
(2013)
G. Dungey et al.New Zealand radiation therapists’ perceptions of peer group supervision as a tool to reduce burnout symptoms in the clinical settingJournal of medical radiation sciences
(2020)
J.L. Dyson et al.From front line to battle planning: a nursing perspective of covid-19International nursing review
(2021)
C. Evans et al.Clinical supervision in a community settingNursing times (1987)
(2015)
P. Fakalata et al.Supporting nurses working in an abortion clinicKai Tiaki: Nursing New Zealand
(2020)
R.J. Fernández‐Castillo et al.Intensive care nurses' experiences during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A qualitative studyNursing in critical care
(2021)
J. FowlerClinical supervision: from staff nurse to nurse consultant Part 1: What is clinical supervisionBritish journal of nursing
(2013)
J. FowlerClinical supervision: from staff nurse to nurse consultantPart 2: clarity of terms. British journal of nursing
(2013)
G.M. Golia et al.If You Save Me, I'll Save You: The Power of Peer Supervision in Clinical Training and Professional DevelopmentThe British journal of social work
(2015)
R.D. Goodman et al.Liberation-focused community outreach: a qualitative exploration of peer group supervision during disaster responseJournal of community psychology
(2014)
Harker, D., Hahn, D., Banks, J., & Orr, T.G. (2015). Peer supervision requires ongoing commitment. Nursing New Zealand...View full text© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
留言 (0)