Search

AIMS/QUESTIONS: To explore the barriers and facilitators to nurses accessing clinical supervision; explore the barriers and facilitators to organizations implementing clinical supervision and capture what skills nurses require to facilitate clinical supervision. DESIGN: Scoping review of peer-reviewed research and grey literature. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, Medline, PsychINFO and Scopus were searched for relevant papers published between 1990 and 2020. Google, Google Scholar, OpenGrey & EThOS were used to search for grey literature. REVIEW METHODS: PRISMA-ScR guidelines were used during the literature review process. Eighty-seven papers were included, and data were extracted from each paper using a standardized form. Data synthesis was undertaken using Seidel's analytical framework. RESULTS: Five themes were identified: Definitions and Models, (Mis) Trust and the Language of Supervision, Alternative Parallel Forums and Support Mechanisms, Time and Cost and Skills required. CONCLUSION: Since its inception in the 1990s, clinical supervision has long been regarded as a supportive platform for nurses to reflect on and develop their practice. However, this review highlights that despite an awareness of the skills required for nurses to undertake clinical supervision, and the facilitators for nurses to access and organizations to implement clinical supervision, there have been persistent barriers to implementation. This review identifies these persistent factors as 'barriers to overcoming the barriers' in the clinical supervision landscape. These require critical consideration to contribute towards moving clinical supervision forward in the spirit of its original intentions. IMPACT: This review progresses the debate on clinical supervision through critically analysing the barriers to overcoming the barriers. To this end, the review is designed to stimulate critical discussions amongst nurses in different clinical spaces and key stakeholders such as policy makers and regulatory

Introduction: Advanced cancer (AC) is increasingly an indication for home parenteral nutrition (HPN) but an area with possible variation in practice between geographical locations. The aims of this study are to explore the views and experiences of international multi-disciplinary teams to determine opinions and practices. Methods: An online questionnaire was developed with members of the Home Artificial Nutrition and Chronic Intestinal Failure interest group of the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) and distributed to colleagues involved in managing patients with AC on HPN. Results: A total of 220 responses were included from 5 continents including 36 countries, with 90% of all responses from Europe. Predicted survival was a key factor influencing the decision to commence HPN for most respondents 152/220 (75%), with the majority of participants reporting that patients should have a predicted survival of ≥3 months if considered for HPN (≥3 months: n = 124, 56% vs. <3 months: n = 47, 21%, p < 0.001). However, most respondents were not confident about predicting overall survival in more than 50% of cases (confident n = 40, 23% vs not confident n = 135, 77%, p < 0.001). Barriers to utilising HPN in AC included colleagues’ objections (n = 91, 46%), lack of local expertise (n = 55, 28%) and funding restrictions (n = 34, 17%). Conclusions: Significant consensus was observed regarding AC as indication for HPN, while areas of variation exist. Survival prognostication is often used as an indication for commencing HPN in people with AC, although the majority of respondents were not confident in prognosticating, suggesting better clinical prognostication tools will be of assistance. Further studies are also required to better understand the obstacles faced by clinical teams to commencing HPN that may explain variations in clinical practice between countries, as well as adressing variation in funding.

Background: The health and social care workforce requires access to appropriate education and training to provide quality care for people with dementia. Success of a training programme depends on staff ability to put their learning into practice through behaviour change. This study aimed to investigate the barriers and facilitators to implementation of dementia education and training in health and social care services using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and COM-B model of behaviour change. Methods: A mixed-methods design. Participants were dementia training leads, training facilitators, managers and staff who had attended training who worked in UK care homes, acute hospitals, mental health services and primary care settings. Methods were an online audit of care and training providers, online survey of trained staff and individual/group interviews with organisational training leads, training facilitators, staff who had attended dementia training and managers. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic template analysis. Results: Barriers and facilitators were analysed according the COM-B domains. “Capability” factors were not perceived as a significant barrier to training implementation. Factors which supported staff capability included the use of interactive face-to-face training, and training that was relevant to their role. Factors that increased staff “motivation” included skilled facilitation of training, trainees’ desire to learn and the provision of incentives (e.g. attendance during paid working hours, badges/certifications). “Opportunity” factors were most prevalent with lack of resources (time, financial, staffing and environmental) being the biggest perceived barrier to training implementation. The presence or not of external support from families and internal factors such as the organisational culture and its supportiveness of good dementia care and training implementation were also influential. Conclusions: A wide range of fac