Summary of - Nurses’ and Midwives’ Experiences of Clinical Supervision in Practice: A Scoping Review Protocol

Title of Original: Nurses’ and Midwives’ Experiences of Clinical Supervision in Practice: A Scoping Review Protocol
Authors: Nicola Gill-Meeley, Orlaith Hernon, Ciaran Cuddihy, Timothy Frawley, Siobhán Smyth
Journal: BMJ Open, 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081619

Why This Matters - Mapping nurses’ and midwives’ experiences of supervision will reveal definitions, challenges, and benefits—informing clearer standards, supportive practices, and future professional development initiatives.

Read Time - 5 Minutes

This article outlines a scoping review protocol designed to identify and map existing evidence on nurses’ and midwives’ experiences of participating in clinical supervision. The review aims to clarify how clinical supervision is defined in the literature, how it is experienced by these professionals, and to identify knowledge gaps for future research.

Clinical supervision is described as a structured, reflective process that provides professional support, encourages self-awareness, and promotes learning from clinical experiences. It offers an opportunity for nurses and midwives to review their practice in a supportive environment and to identify areas for professional development. While it is increasingly recognised as a valuable support mechanism, inconsistencies remain regarding how clinical supervision is understood, implemented, and experienced.

The article explains that clinical supervision has become more widely recommended by professional and regulatory bodies internationally because of its reported benefits, including enhanced self-confidence, competence, and reduced psychological burden. However, access to supervision remains inconsistent and often depends on local policy, resources, and organisational culture. Variation in how it is delivered—such as through individual or group models—creates obstacles to evaluating its effectiveness. Misunderstandings about its purpose also persist, with some practitioners perceiving it as managerial oversight rather than supportive reflection.

The authors note that although previous studies have examined clinical supervision in various professions, there is limited review evidence focused specifically on nursing and midwifery. Earlier reviews have discussed barriers and enablers, such as time constraints, lack of trust, inadequate training, and limited physical space, but few have examined the lived experiences of nurses and midwives as distinct professional groups. This scoping review will therefore address this gap.

The review seeks to answer three research questions:

What evidence exists on nurses’ and midwives’ experiences and perceptions of participating in clinical supervision?
How is clinical supervision defined in the literature?
What forms of clinical supervision have evidence regarding nurses’ and midwives’ experience of participating in them?

The inclusion criteria specify that participants must be registered nurses or midwives engaged in clinical supervision in practice settings, including hospital and community contexts. Studies focusing on students or other professional groups will be excluded. Research from any country will be included if published from 2010 onwards. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies, as well as scoping and systematic reviews, will be considered. Conference proceedings and opinion pieces will be excluded.

The review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews and the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines. The search strategy was developed with an academic librarian and will include multiple databases—CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Library—alongside grey literature sources such as ProQuest and Google Scholar. Reference lists of included studies will also be screened. The search process will be iterative, with any adjustments documented for transparency.

All search results will be imported into EndNote for de-duplication, then screened independently by two reviewers using RAYYAN software. Articles that meet inclusion criteria will undergo full-text screening by both reviewers, with a third reviewer resolving disagreements. The selection process will be recorded in a PRISMA flow diagram.

Data extraction will use a form adapted from the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis to ensure comprehensive capture of study details, including design, sample, methodology, and findings related to experiences of supervision. The tool will be piloted and refined as necessary. Extracted data will be summarised using descriptive and narrative methods to display the range and distribution of studies.

The review will not include a quality assessment of studies, in line with scoping review methodology. Findings will be presented in tables and narrative form to describe patterns in study design, geography, and key themes.

Ethical approval is not required as the review analyses existing literature. Dissemination will occur through publication, conference presentations, and stakeholder engagement. The project received funding from the Office of Nursing and Midwifery Services Director, Ireland, with the authors declaring no conflicts of interest.

In summary, this protocol provides a structured plan to identify and synthesise evidence about how nurses and midwives experience clinical supervision. By mapping definitions, contexts, and study characteristics, the review will inform understanding of clinical supervision within these professions and guide future research on its implementation and impact.