Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-c75p9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-07T07:16:50.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Barriers to Lead Psychiatric Clinical Supervision – A Cross-Sectional Survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2025

Zaib un Nisa
Affiliation:
Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, United Kingdom
Zong Lai
Affiliation:
Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom
Kehinde Junaid
Affiliation:
Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom
Bala Ganesan
Affiliation:
Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom
Sudheer Lankappa
Affiliation:
Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Aims: The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) recommends that psychiatric trainees receive one hour of 1:1 supervision per week, with clinical supervisors allocated 0.25 PA (programmed activity) protected time per trainee weekly. The GMC National Training Survey 2023 found that 86% of trainees reported positive feedback on clinical supervision, though the survey was not psychiatry specific. Locally, the Resident Doctors Forum raised concerns about some trainees not receiving the recommended supervision time, prompting the introduction of a new supervision form.

Aims were to identify and assess barriers to providing regular supervision to support the professional development of psychiatrists in training within Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust.

Methods: A questionnaire was developed based on the “Enablers and Barriers to Effective Clinical Supervision in the Workplace: A Rapid Evidence Review” to identify barriers to effective clinical supervision. It was emailed to all lead clinical supervisors in Adult Mental Health, with a two-week response deadline. The feedback was analysed using a mixed methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative analysis.

Results: The survey received a 30% response rate (21 out of 70 eligible trainers), with a distribution reflecting the grades of resident doctors in the trust: 34% supervising HST, 34% supervising CT, 19% supervising FY, and 13% supervising GPVTS.

Key findings include: 67% of trainers felt their clinical workload allowed sufficient time for supervision, but 81% sometimes had to cancel due to clinical commitments. Trainers with sufficient time for supervision typically had protected time formally agreed in their job plans (85%).

80% of trainers faced cancellations due to trainee unavailability (e.g., shift work, staff shortages), and 10% felt supervision was hindered by inadequate resources, such as lack of private spaces.

Awareness of the RCPsych supervision guidance was low (33%), and 50% were not familiar with or did not use the local supervision form. Opinions on the form were divided: half found it helpful, while the other half saw it as additional workload.

Major barriers to effective supervision included intense clinical workload, time pressure, staff shortages, managing multiple trainees, and trainee unavailability due to on-call or leave commitments.

Conclusion: Suggested actions to address these barriers include:

Distributing the RCPsych guidance and Supervision Form to all trainers.

Encouraging supervisors to schedule supervision mid-week to avoid conflicts with on-call shifts.

Supervisors should discuss protected time in their job plans with clinical directors and work with medical education to find private workspaces for supervision.

Information

Type
Quality Improvement
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.