Abstract: Nursing literature reflects that nurses have been exploring and experiencing the process of clinical supervision for well over a decade. Nurses in the United States, United Kingdom, Scandinavia, and Australasia have written much over the past fifteen years. However, the author notes that nurses grapple with what clinical supervision is within nursing development and disquiet continues to emerge in the literature. This literature review expands on themes that surround this disquiet. These centre on continued confusion and lack of clear definition; whether psychotherapy is implemented under the guise of clinical supervision, who uses it, and the dearth of empirical evaluation of its effectiveness. The lack of significant empirical evidence of its ability to assist practitioners to deliver improved patient/client care continues despite claims of improved professional and personal development, therapeutic relationship, and occupational stress management. These claims come from both supervisees and supervisors. The manner in which clinical supervision is portrayed in nursing in that it is frequently referred to as a support system, rather than one of learning a complex set of communication skills is also highlighted. The continued debate on what model(s) best suit nurses, or whether line management should provide clinical supervision as a means to ensure quality standards and control over nursing practice and optimal patient care is discussed. Whether nursing should stop borrowing from other fields and develop their own model(s) is also raised. Two emerging stances focus on a process that is practice-based as identified by senior staff and management, or one that continues along the lines of what psychotherapy has developed with practitioner-identified developmental needs. These issues raise many questions for further development in nursing, one being are nurses developed enough in their self-awareness to understand what they are to adopt into their practice? Authentic voices from those nurses experienced in the practice of providing and receiving clinical supervision, are shaping therapeutic practice for nurses in the future, and continue to sharpen the debate. Some reference to unpublished data and local practice in the Wellington area have been included as a stimulus for further incorporation of clinical supervision in local practice development.

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to shed some light on the concept of clinical supervision specifically in relation to mental health nursing. The author talks briefly about the naming and history of clinical supervision and aims to provide some clarity around defining the concept. There is discussion around the role, value and objectives of clinical supervision before critical examination of two models of clinical supervision within two different contexts. Finally the strengths and weaknesses of each model are discussed, and the differences illustrate some of the contextual factors of clinical supervision.

Abstract: Critical Comparative Nursing Assessment (CCNA) is a theory about how the competence of completing Bachelor of Nursing students in New Zealand is determined. Semi-structured, audio-taped interviews and field notes were used to collect data from twenty-seven nurses with experience in undertaking competency assessment. A Glaserian grounded theory approach was used to guide the data collection and analysis. This utilised the processes of constant comparative analysis, theoretical sampling and saturation to generate a middle range substantive grounded theory. This is presented as a model consisting of four emergent categories that explain how nurses formulate professional judgements about competence. These are a) gathering, which describes the processes used to collect evidence of practice to inform decisions; b) weighing up, which explains how evidence is analysed using the processes of benchmarking and comparative analysis; c) judging brings into focus the tensions inherent in making professional judgements about competence and how nurses formulated these, and d) moderating, which describes the processes nurses use to validate decisions and ensure that professional responsibilities and public safety are upheld. The basic social psychological process of comparing integrates these categories to explain how nurses resolve the tensions associated with making decisions about competence. This research presents a new way of viewing and understanding how nurses assess competence. It identifies where the challengers and tensions related to the assessment of competence lie and suggests strategies that if implemented, the author suggests could further enhance the validity and reliability of assessment outcomes.