A systematic review of clinical supervision evaluation studies in nursing

According to the international, extant literature published during the last 20 years or so, clinical supervision (CS) in nursing is now a reasonably common phenomenon. Nevertheless, what appears to be noticeably 'thin on the ground' in this body of literature are empirical evaluations of CS, especially those pertaining to client outcomes. Accordingly, the authors undertook a systematic review of empirical evaluations of CS in nursing to determine the state of the science. Adopting the approach documented by Stroup et al. (JAMA, 283, 2000, 2008), the authors searched for reports of evaluation studies of CS in nursing - published during the years 1995 to 2015. Keywords for the search were 'clinical supervision', 'evaluation', 'efficacy', 'nursing', and combinations of these keywords. Electronic databases used were CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsychLIT, and the British Nursing Index. The research evidence from twenty-eight (28) studies reviewed is presented, outlining the main findings with an overview of each study presented. The following broad themes were identified and are each discussed in the study: narrative/anecdotal accounts of positive outcomes for clinical supervision, narrative/anecdotal accounts of negative outcomes for clinical supervision, empirical positive outcomes reported by supervisee, and empirical findings showing no effect by supervisee.