The Supervisees' Perspectives Concerning the Clinical Supervision of Radiologic Sciences Students at Clinical Sites: Implications and Future Directions

Asseel Khalaf 1, Anwar B Almutairi 2, Raed Saeed 1, Naser Alotaibi 3, Hamad Alhamad 3, Layla Ghadanfar 1

Affiliations

29 March 2023

-

doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S397035

Abstract

Introduction: Clinical supervision (CS) is essential to practice-based learning in radiology. The assessment of the effectiveness of CS is essential to ensure the success of the process and to provide high-quality patient care.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the CS of both Diagnostic Radiography (DR) and Nuclear Medicine (NM) technology students studying at Kuwait University.

Methods: The Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale-26 (MCSS-26©) was distributed electronically to 90 third and fourth year students from Radiologic Sciences department. Ethical approval was obtained from the Health Sciences Centre (HSC) Ethical Committee and all the participants provided electronic informed consent. Data are presented as mean ± SD.

Results: Seventy responses were collected from DR and NM (response rate 78%, DR: n= 51, NM: n=19). Overall, the mean CS score from the MCSS was 67.7±11.3, n=70. CS in NM scored more effective than that in DR with a p=0.037 (72.3±10.1, 66.0±11.3, respectively).

Conclusion: The effectiveness of CS has been evaluated in third and fourth year students across the two divisions of RS the department at Kuwait University. This study showed that students value the impact of CS in their professional role and 70% reported being satisfied with the overall CS experience. Limited studies are available that focuses on students' perceptions about clinical supervision; therefore, more studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of CS among RS students. Implications for interprofessional education are presented.

Keywords: MCSS-26; clinical supervision; education; practice-based learning; radiography; student‘s perception.

Figures

Figure 1 Characteristics of supervision sessions for DR and NM divisions. In (A), the graph presents the percentage of the frequency of clinical supervision for DR and NM students, (B) presents the percentage of the type of clinical supervision for DR and NM students and (C) presents the percentage of the duration of clinical supervision for DR and NM students.

Figure 1 Characteristics of supervision sessions for DR and NM divisions. In (A), the graph presents the percentage of the frequency of clinical supervision for DR and NM students, (B) presents the percentage of the type of clinical supervision for DR and NM students and (C) presents the percentage of the duration of clinical supervision for DR and NM students.

Figure 2 The percentage of the overall satisfaction scores with the clinical supervision received by the DR and NM divisions.

Figure 2 The percentage of the overall satisfaction scores with the clinical supervision received by the DR and NM divisions.

Similar articles

Effectiveness of clinical supervision of physiotherapists: a survey.

Snowdon DA, Millard G, Taylor NF.Aust Health Rev. 2015 Apr;39(2):190-196. doi: 10.1071/AH14020.PMID: 25556758

Translation of the Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale (MCSS) into Danish and a preliminary psychometric validation.

Buus N, Gonge H.Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2013 Apr;22(2):145-53. doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0349.2012.00858.x. Epub 2012 Jul 5.PMID: 22762279

Introduction to a special section on the supervisee's perspective of reflective supervision/consultation.

Barron CC, Eaves T.Infant Ment Health J. 2022 Mar;43(2):203-206. doi: 10.1002/imhj.21976. Epub 2022 Apr 1.PMID: 35362562

Factors influencing adequate and effective clinical supervision for inpatient mental health nurses' personal and professional development: An integrative review.

Howard V, Eddy-Imishue GK.J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2020 Oct;27(5):640-656. doi: 10.1111/jpm.12604. Epub 2020 Feb 9.PMID: 31981445 Review.

Radiography Students' Learning: A Literature Review.

Holmström A, Ahonen SM.Radiol Technol. 2016 Mar-Apr;87(4):371-9.PMID: 26952061 Review.

KMEL References

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

References

  1.  
    1. England A, Geers-van Gemeren S, Henner A, et al. Clinical radiography education across Europe. Radiography. 2017;23(Suppl 1):S7–S15. doi:10.1016/j.radi.2017.05.011 - DOI - PubMed
  2.  
    1. Radiographers TCo. Clinical supervision framework; 2003.
  3.  
    1. Martin P, Kumar S, Lizarondo L, Tyack Z. Factors influencing the perceived quality of clinical supervision of occupational therapists in a large Australian state. Aust Occup Ther J. 2016;63(5):338–346. doi:10.1111/1440-1630.12314 - DOI - PubMed
  4.  
    1. Bolderston A, Morgan S. Global impact: an examination of a Caribbean radiation therapy student placement at a Canadian teaching hospital. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2010;41(3):152–158. doi:10.1016/j.jmir.2010.07.001 - DOI - PubMed
  5.  
    1. Cunningham J, Wright C, Baird M. Managing clinical education through understanding key principles. Radiol Technol. 2015;86(3):257–273. - PubMed
  6.  
    1. Ogbu SOI. Radiography students’ perceptions of clinical placements - a Nigerian perspective. Radiography. 2008;14:154–161. doi:10.1016/j.radi.2007.01.003 - DOI
  7.  
    1. Alyami J, Alsharif W, Almutairi FF, et al. Investigating confidence levels of Saudi clinical supervisors in radiology departments. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2022;13:797–808. doi:10.2147/AMEP.S355596 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
  8.  
    1. Bwanga O. Radiography students’ perceptions and experiences of their clinical placements: a qualitative systematic review. East African Scholars J Med Sci. 2019;2:367–380.
  9.  
    1. Bwanga O. Experiences of nurses in the clinical supervision of nursing students: findings from a systematic review and their application to radiography. EAS J Nurs Midwifery. 2019;2019:126–137.
  10.  
    1. Fowler P, Wilford B. Formative feedback in the clinical practice setting: what are the perceptions of student radiographers? Radiography. 2016;22:e16–e24. doi:10.1016/j.radi.2015.03.005 - DOI
  11.  
    1. Winstanley J, White E. The MCSS-26: revision of the Manchester clinical supervision scale using the rasch measurement model. J Nurs Meas. 2011;19(3):160–178. doi:10.1891/1061-3749.19.3.160 - DOI - PubMed
  12.  
    1. Gardner MJ, McKinstry C, Perrin B. Effectiveness of allied health clinical supervision: a cross-sectional survey of supervisees. J Allied Health. 2018;47(2):126–132. - PubMed
  13.  
    1. Kumar S, Osborne K, Lehmann T. Clinical supervision of allied health professionals in country South Australia: a mixed methods pilot study. Aust J Rural Health. 2015;23(5):265–271. doi:10.1111/ajr.12231 - DOI - PubMed
  14.  
    1. Snowdon DA, Sargent M, Williams CM, Maloney S, Caspers K, Taylor NF. Effective clinical supervision of allied health professionals: a mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;20(1):2. doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4873-8 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
  15.  
    1. Beveridge J, Pentland D. A mapping review of models of practice education in allied health and social care professions. Br J Occup Ther. 2020;83(8):488–513. doi:10.1177/0308022620904325 - DOI
  16.  
    1. O’Connor A, Cahill M, McKay EA. Revisiting 1:1 and 2:1 clinical placement models: student and clinical educator perspectives. Aust Occup Ther J. 2012;59(4):276–283. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1630.2012.01025.x - DOI - PubMed
  17.  
    1. Dawson M, Phillips B, Leggat SG. Effective clinical supervision for regional allied health professionals - The supervisee’s perspective. Aust Health Rev. 2012;36(1):92–97. doi:10.1071/AH11006 - DOI - PubMed
  18.  
    1. Saxby C, Wilson J, Newcombe P. Can clinical supervision sustain our workforce in the current healthcare landscape? Findings from a Queensland study of allied health professionals. Aust Health Rev. 2015;39(4):476–482. doi:10.1071/AH14183 - DOI - PubMed
  19.  
    1. Fenton P. Student perceptions of a quality clinical experience: findings from the literature and their application to radiation therapy. Radiographer. 2005;52:30–33. doi:10.1002/j.2051-3909.2005.tb00028.x - DOI
  20.  
    1. O’Connor M, Stowe J, Potocnik J, Giannotti N, Murphy S, Rainford L. 3D virtual reality simulation in radiography education: the students’ experience. Radiography. 2021;27(1):208–214. doi:10.1016/j.radi.2020.07.017 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
  21.  
    1. Chytas D, Salmas M, Demesticha T, et al. A review of the use of virtual reality for teaching radiology in conjunction with anatomy. Cureus. 2021;13(12):e20174. doi:10.7759/cureus.20174 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
  22.  
    1. Vestbøstad M, Karlgren K, Olsen NR. Research on simulation in radiography education: a scoping review protocol. Syst Rev. 2020;9(1):263. doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01531-2 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
  23.  
    1. Cucu-Oancea O. Using diaries - A real challenge for the social scientist. Procedia. 2013;2013:231–238.
  24.  
    1. Naidoo D, Van Wyk J. Fieldwork practice for learning: lessons from occupational therapy students and their supervisors. Afr J Health Prof Educ. 2016;8:37–40. doi:10.7196/AJHPE.2016.v8i1.536 - DOI
  25.  
    1. Aljadi SH, Alotaibi NM, Alrowayeh HN, Alshatti TA. Benefits and challenges of supervising physical therapy students in the state of Kuwait: a national study. J Allied Health. 2017;46(4):243–249. - PubMed
  26.  
    1. Alotaibi N, Shayea A, Nadar M, Abu Tariah H. Investigation into health science students’ awareness of occupational therapy: implications for interprofessional education. J Allied Health. 2015;44(1):3–9. - PubMed
  27.  
    1. Alotaibi NM, Manee FS, Murphy LJ, Rassafiani M. Knowledge about and attitudes of interdisciplinary team members toward occupational therapy practice: implications and future directions. Med Princ Pract. 2019;28(2):158–166. doi:10.1159/000495915 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
  28.  
    1. Buff SM, Gibbs PY, Oubré OL, Ariail JC, Blue AV, Greenberg RS. Junior Doctors of Health©: an interprofessional service-learning project addressing childhood obesity and encouraging health care career choices. J Allied Health. 2011;40(3):e39–44. - PubMed

Page Navigation