At The Key, we hold weekly Trauma-informed supervision sessions, which offer our staff the opportunity to offload any issues they have encountered over the week, collaboratively problem solve with peers, share best practice and facilitate healthy, positive group dynamics.
Improved practice from confident practitioners.
A culture in which work is valued and patients are valued
Improved recruitment and retention of staff
Increased accountability and motivation.
Enhanced well-being and reduced sickness rates.
Improved communication among workers.
Maintenance of clinical skills and quality practice.
Increased job satisfaction.
Safeguarding of standards of patient care by promoting best practice.
Promoting self-awareness and professional accountability.
Increased staff commitment because they work in a culture where learning and development are valued.
Opportunities for staff to be proactive in improving care.
(Alila et al. 2016; Carroll 2010; Hawkins and Shohet 2012)
At The Key we recognise that there are many different understandings of supervision.
We utilise principles described by Sturt & Rowe (2018) and identify supervision as having four functions:
Management
Mediation
Professional Development
Emotional Support
We do not use supervision as performance management; we have another process for appraisal purposes which allows supervision to function in a much more honest and confidential manner.
At The Key, we utilise the functions of supervision, as described above, for the purpose of improving outcomes between the four main groups involved:
Students
Staff
School
Stakeholders - i.e. parents
Within this framework, we utilise an experiential model of reflection, derived from Kolb (1984).
As there are many different definitions of supervision in the research literature, we utilised the list opposite (adapted from Helen & Douglas House Toolkit) as a framework within which to guide our supervisory practice
It is important to comment that we recognise that although there are a lot of similarities between the two, supervision and therapy are not the same and we provide explicit guidelines regarding the differences.
We utilise a version of participative group supervision in which the supervisor is “responsible for supervising and managing the group; also for inducing and facilitating supervisees as co-supervisors” (Proctor, 2000). We opted for group supervision as it provides the opportunity to discuss vulnerabilities and shortcomings, seen as beneficial, with supervisees’ comments suggesting they are now better placed to understand the motives and frailties of their colleagues, as they themselves may have experienced the same emotions……may be central to the development of camaraderie and feelings of unity in the workplace (Willis & Baines, 2018).
We incorporate the mutual aid model, in which supervisors have a threefold responsibility: (Knight, 2017)
Provide instruction and guidance to supervisees, if relevant
Encourage supervisees to learn from and support one another (and recognising commonalities)
Attend to group process to ensure that it is supporting and facilitating supervisees’ learning
We utilise a person centred approach - 3 key tenets:(Rogers, 1983)
Congruence (genuineness, sharing feelings and attitudes rather than opinions and judgements)
Unconditional Positive Regard
Empathy
We recognise the importance of a strong supervisory working alliance: (Bordin, 1983)
Agreement on goals
Agreement on task required for goal attainment
Relational bond between partners
Everything is underpinned by trust and strong relationships
(Page & Whosket, 2015)
The contracting stage involves the ‘check-in’ and resetting of ground rules, expectations, boundaries and protocols, fostering safety and trust
The focus stage involves collectively identifying the topics that group members feel they would benefit most from discussing.
The space stage offers the opportunity for collaboration, affirmation, containment, challenge, and investigation in relation to each supervisee’s work.
The bridge involves the integration of material discussed in the group with the practice context and can take the form of action planning, information-giving and exploring the client’s perspective. At this stage the discussion is linked back to the practical, tangible, ‘work’
The review stage involve feedback on the supervision itself, discussing any group dynamics or relevant feelings / thoughts regarding the process in that session
We recognise that one of the most important aspects of implementing supervision was ensuring that every staff member felt safe, which included not only the physical environment but also the psychological safety that promotes trust and positive relationships within their groups.
Before we started the supervisory process, we ensured that all involved were clear on the ground rules, with the purpose and other important information clearly communicated between supervisor and the group
Our supervisors were volunteer staff members that could see the worth of implementing such a process; they are supported regularly and offered ongoing specific professional development opportunities and their own supervision, so they can bring any particular issues they felt could not be addressed during their group. This training involved developing skills around strengths based questioning, solution focused approaches, the importance of non-verbal communication, tending to group dynamics and the role of emotions and ensuring the promotion of the key supervisor-group relationship.