Search

Introduction Mental Health Nurses (MHNs) are at increased risk of experiencing psychological distress due to the nature of dynamic working environments and patient presentations resulting in cumulative experiences of various traumas. This psychological distress can result in negative outcomes affecting both the personal and professional lives of nurses through burnout, compassion fatigue and vicarious trauma. It also impacts organizations through recruitment and retention issues, as well as having adverse effects on patient experiences and outcomes. Aims & Objectives To establish what is known in regard to how nurses in mental health settings experience gaining access to workplace psychological supports in current available literature. Methods A scoping review will be conducted using the PRISMA-ScR tool to determine the breadth of literature available regarding nurses’ experiences of accessing psychological support. A search strategy will aid in locating both published and unpublished material. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method designs will be included. Searches of four healthcare orientated databases and manual searches of relevant journals will be conducted. A PRISMA Flowchart will be included to display data screening process and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data extraction forms will be piloted prior to full review, updated accordingly and then used to chart data. Data will be synthesized through a descriptive summary supported by a visual display of charted date in table form. Outcomes To map key concepts in regard to perceived and actual barriers and facilitators to accessing psychological supports for mental health nurses and to determine areas for further enquiry.

Introduction: The practice of clinical supervision is increasingly prevalent within nursing and midwifery yet disparity remains in relation to professionals understanding of this clinical support and how it is implemented in practice. This scoping review will identify the available evidence and gaps in knowledge that exist in this field, examine existing concepts and definitions of this practice and highlight the barriers and facilitators for nurses and midwives participating in clinical supervision. Inclusion Criteria: All empirical data that identifies and reports nurses’ and midwives’ experiences of clinical supervision will be included in the review. Studies that include other health and social care professionals will be excluded where the nursing and midwifery cohort is not reported independently. Methods: Comprehensive searches of CINAHL Complete, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Library will be carried out, searches will be limited to results dated since 2010 to ensure data reflects contemporary nursing and midwifery practice. Grey literature will also be searched and a hand search will be conducted of sources that fall outside these database. All results will be screened independently by two reviewers using identified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data from all relevant studies will be extracted using a validated adapted data extraction form. Our review will be guided by the Joanne Briggs Institute for Evidence Synthesis and findings will be guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) statement.

Clinical Supervision (CS) is a formal process of professional support that assists nurses and midwives to develop and learn through structured reflection on their practice. The primary process of CS is reflection on clinical experiences in order to recount them, deepen understanding and possibly identify areas to be improved upon in the future (Brunero & Stein-Parbury 2008, Proctor 2008). CS provides the opportunity for nurses and midwives to reflect on their clinical practice in a safe and supportive environment (Brunero & Stein-Parbury 2008, Fowler & Dooher 2010, Butterworth 2022). The adoption of CS to support nursing and midwifery practice has become more prevalent in recent years due to growing recognition that this is a valuable support mechanism that has the potential to positively influence professional practice and advance professional development (Bernard and Goodyear 2014, Golia & McGovern 2015, Gonge & Buus 2015). The merits of CS for healthcare professionals have been widely reported (Bernard and Goodyear 2014, Golia & McGovern 2015, Gonge & Buus 2015, Cutcliffe et al 2018, Rothwell 2021), with recognised benefits including enhanced practitioner self-awareness, confidence and self-efficacy (Golia and McGovern 2015), CS had also been reported to reduced stress and anxiety and lead to increased job satisfaction (Rothwell 2021, Gonge & Buus 2015). The latter is particularly relevant in recent times as the worldwide crisis resulting from COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the emotional impact of nursing and midwifery practice and the need for professional supports. Progressively, nursing and midwifery regulatory bodies and health service organisations globally are recommending CS for all nursing and midwifery professionals (Office of Nursing and Midwifery Services Director [ONMSD 2015, Health Service Executive [HSE], 2015, Nursing and Midwifery Planning & Development Units [NMPDUs], 2017; 2018; 2019, Nursing and Midwifery Council [NMC] 2018, Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland 2015, Australian College of Nursing, 2019) and enquiries into cases of failures in practice resulting in detrimental outcomes have specifically highlighted the need for CS to be made available to enhance professional support (Laming 2009, HSE 2010). Yet despite this, access to this aid remains inequitable as availability of CS in nursing and midwifery settings continues to vary greatly between disciplines and services. Evidence suggest that this may be a result of a lack of common understanding of the process leading to poor appreciation of its benefits and suspicion that it is a form of surveillance rather than a support mechanism (Rothwell et al 2021, Butterworth 2022). It has also been suggested a paucity of readily available and accessible evidence may impact negatively on its acceptability and perceived value in practice (Cutcliffe et al 2018, Rothwell et al 2021). Moreover, there are several models of CS undertaken in practice with no universal consensus on what form it should take (Pollock 2017, Cutcliffe et al 2018); this creates challenges in measuring its effectiveness and inconsistency in the format of delivery potentially impacts on its implementation in practice due to lack of clarity on its form and purpose (Cutcliffe 2018, Rothwell 2021). The format of CS can vary from one to one supervision to peer group supervision, each individual format has its own benefits and challenges and it is recognised that no one ideal form of CS (Fowler & Dooher 2010, Butterworth 2022) meaning those undertaking CS need to really understand the practice to enable them recognise the system that will work for best for their own service (Butterworth 2022). Currently, there is little in the way of review evidence in this field. A small number of reviews exist but these are not wholly specific to the experiences of nursing and midwifery professions participating in CS. A previous rapid review that focussed on barriers and enablers of CS in practice (Rothwell 2021) demonstrated important enablers such as the availability of regular protected time and cultural acceptance of the process and highlighted that barriers to the implementation of CS included lack of time, space and trusting relationships. Cutcliffe et al (2018) conducted a systematic review of CS evaluation studies in nursing in a bid to uncover empirical data regarding its effectiveness established that there is a growing body of evidence to support this practice and identified a need for high quality training in this area to ensure CS is facilitated effectively, the studies included in this systematic review represented the finding from studies across many different professions and included both undergraduate and post graduate nurses. Findings from these reviews highlighted valuable data and may be transferrable to nursing and midwifery however it is recognised that each profession is likely to have their own individual challenges and needs (Rothwell 2021). Much of the data included these reviews was heterogeneous in nature encompassing a broad set of health and social care professionals whose frame of reference, role and professional values vary from that of nursing and midwifery. The objectives of these systematic reviews are distinct from those of this scoping review, the purpose of this review is to identify the available research evidence that has focused on nurses’ and midwives’ experiences and perceptions of participating in CS in order to clarify key concepts and definitions of this practice in the literature, identify the main characteristics and identify and analyse knowledge gaps in this field. This will provide evidence about the practice of CS from the perspective of nurses and midwives who have participated in it, as those who have experienced this in the practice environment are best placed to report on it and potentially identify areas that require further exploration. A preliminary search of PROSPERO, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and JBI evidence Synthesis was conducted and no further current or in progress scoping reviews or systematic reviews were identified. To our knowledge, there is no review that has sought to examine both nurses and midwives views and experiences of CS internationally in practice. For these reasons, this scoping review is timely as it will allow for a comprehensive picture of the evidence in the nursing and midwifery population, and provide insight into how CS is undertaken within practice to help inform future research opportunities.

Scoping Review of databases for journal articles pertaining to neurodiversity in third level institutions re Neurodiversity Friendly Campus Project