Home > Journals > Minerva Psychiatry > Past Issues > Minerva Psychiatry 2021 June;62(2) > Minerva Psychiatry 2021 June;62(2):94-102

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as
Share

 

REVIEW   

Minerva Psychiatry 2021 June;62(2):94-102

DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6612.21.02113-0

Copyright © 2021 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Group clinical supervision in adult mental health settings

Martina GALLETTI 1, Maria MOSCARA 1, Giorgio MATTEI 2, 3, 4, Jessica BALDUCCI 2, Andrea SACCHETTI 2, Giulia VENTURI 2, Chiara VISENTINI 1, Silvia FERRARI 2, 5, Gian M. GALEAZZI 2, 6

1 Department of Mental Health and Drug Abuse, AUSL Modena, Modena, Italy; 2 Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; 3 Marco Biagi Department of Economics, Marco Biagi Foundation, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; 4 Association for Research in Psychiatry, Castelnuovo Rangone, Modena, Italy; 5 Center for Neuroscience and Neurotechnology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; 6 Dipartimento di Salute Mentale e Dipendenze Patologiche, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy



INTRODUCTION: Supervision in mental health services (MHSs) has a long tradition. Aim of this review was to analyze papers focused on group clinical supervision in adult psychiatric services.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature was performed, according to the PRISMA guidelines. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO. Papers were electronically identified through a database search updated up to October 31, 2020, on PubMed, PsycInfo, Scopus and Web of Science. English-written papers were eligible if reporting any data measuring directly or indirectly the outcome of supervision on mental health professionals.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-five articles were included: three randomized controlled trials, one cohort study, one cross-sectional and twenty qualitative studies. Although supervision is widely employed among MHSs, the number of studies documenting its diffusion and efficacy is limited. Furthermore, poor operational definitions of supervision limit comparisons among studies. Participants generally reported an improved sense of professional competence and expressed a clear preference for a supervisor coming from outside the work environment. This choice may impact on budget, therefore future studies should address also cost effectiveness of group supervision.
CONCLUSIONS: Improved sense of competence, widely reported by participants, should encourage further studies to better investigate supervision cost; therefore, future studies should also address effectiveness in clinical contexts. In particular, professionals taking part to supervision found that a supervisor coming from outside their organizations was more effective, but this may bring additional costs.


KEY WORDS: Nursing; Mental health; Burnout, psychological; Systematic review

top of page