Introduction: Global Perspectives on Fundamental Themes in Clinical Supervision

Abstract

It is now almost ten years since Fundamental Themes in Clinical Supervision (Cutcliffe et al. 2001), was written and during these years, clinical supervision (CS) has remained on the radar for those involved in health care practice, education, development and/or education. While it might be argued that attention to CS within academic journal articles may have passed beyond its zenith (arguably this occurred during the 1990s), examination of the extant literature reveals that CS is very much still a matter of high interest. The possible decline in the number of papers notwithstanding, a closer inspection of the extant literature shows a number of interesting things. First, the papers that continue to be published appear to add something new, meaningful and/or significant to the literature (and it would be inaccurate to assert this of the papers produced during the 1990s when there was a great deal of repetition). Second, while it might be said that some of the earlier published work could have ‘delved a little deeper’ into the substantive issues, the more recent published work appears to do just that. Third, almost no new CS books have emerged during recent years. As with any longitudinal, evolutionary, cumulative approach to knowledge generation, the existence of earlier work by no means serves to suggest that there is nothing new worth saying; on the contrary, what this actually means is that we have more questions now than perhaps we did before (Toulmin 1967; Popper 1972). A further outcome of interrogating the extant literature is that of the discovery of gaps in our knowledge base. Accordingly, it is perhaps worthy of note that some existing questions do not appear to have been fully debated or resolved and others have yet to be asked. As a result, this book attempts to make a significant (if not seminal) contribution to the extant CS literature by focusing on issues that continue to be of contemporary interest and furthermore by focusing on hitherto under-examined issues. In addition to the continued widespread interest in CS, there are additional reasons for producing a new book. First, CS is now much more of a genuine global phenomenon than it was ten years ago. More countries have embraced CS within various practice domains (e.g. see New Zealand, Australia, Canada); more individuals are thus involved in giving/receiving CS, studying CS, introducing CS into policies and practices, and teaching/training CS. The international interest is now far larger than it was ten years ago and yet with this context in mind, few (if any) books have been produced recently that will havethe content, international authorship and thus high utility/applicability that this book has. The ongoing need for CS should also be considered with the context of the evidence-based practice movement which has swept several nations. Those nations and populations who are interested or already engaging in CS thus need to have the most comprehensive, robust empirical evidence upon which to base their practice. This book pulls together numerous key research themes within CS and provides some of the most contemporary findings available. Again, these are in no way limited to one country. Contemporary issues pertaining to litigation and quality of care still abound (and some would say these have increased during recent years). Mindful of this development and the inescapable link between CS and quality of care/clinical governance, we have included new chapters that specifically focus on these issues. While the original editors touched on this in Fundamental Themes in Clinical Supervision, policy and quality matters have moved on, therefore a book that includes chapters on links between CS and these issues is much needed. Again, with reference to international developments, one of the most compelling developments in recent years is the rise of the Magnet Recognition Program and the associated ‘movement’. Perhaps analogous or similar to the Nurse (Practice) Development movement synonymous with the Kings Fund in the 1980s and some United Kingdom universities in the 1990s, Magnet Status is a huge deal right now in the United States. The Magnet Recognition Program was developed to recognise health care organizations that provide excellence in nursing practice. The new Magnet Model emphasises today five domains:1 transformational leadership 2 structural empowerment 3 exemplary professional practice 4 new knowledge, innovations and improvements 5 empirical outcomes.