Findings on Research on Peer Supervision in Rural and Remote Australia using technology

1
Findings on Research on Peer Supervision in
Rural and Remote Australia using technology

• Amanda Nickson
• BSW MSW MAASW (Acc)

2
Why?

• The Australian Association of Social Workers
  (AASW) requires regular supervision of social
  workers to gain and maintain accreditation with
  the association
• The National Practice Standards of the AASW
  Supervision, requires
• 1.recent graduates (lt 3yrs full time experience)
  to have the equivalent of one uninterrupted hour
  individual supervision weekly
• 2. Social Workers with gt 3yrs full time
  experience to have the equivalent of one
  uninterrupted hour individual supervision
  fortnightly

3
Why?

• Difficulty accessing supervision for workers in
  rural and remote areas impact on recruitment
  and retention of staff
• Personal experience of inadequate peer
  supervision at a senior social worker level
  within a large government department

4
Why?

• Turnover and burnout of social workers in rural
  and remote Australia
• Lack of available supervisors in rural and remote
  areas
• Gap in literature
• Technology can overcome the tyranny of distance

5
Definitions

• The National Practice Standards of the Australian
  Association of Social Work Supervision, AASW,
  (1993) document states that the primary purpose
  of professional supervision is to facilitate
  competent, independent practice. It refers to
  three equally important components in supervision
  being administration, education and support.

6
Supervision - definitions

• Kadushin and Harkness (2002), observed that the
  ultimate long term objective of social work
  supervision is to provide efficient and effective
  services to clients. In the short term, the
  objective of administrative supervision is to
  provide frontline social workers with a context
  that permits them to do their job effectively.

7
Terminology

• Difficulties identified with terminology, the
  word supervision having negative concepts around
  power imbalances, status and knowledge hierarchy
  for some (Cuss, 2005).
• Other words such as mentoring, coaching, peer
  support and debriefing are used in some work
  environments.
• Ideas on alternative terms may be sought from
  participants during the research

8
Peer Supervision

• Peer supervision in virtual teams refers to a
  team or group whose members work together to
  explore and reflect their own and each others
  professional experiences by supporting,
  analysing, planning and hypothetically testing
  the changes in their professional /or personal
  life of each other through telecommunication

9
Definitions

• Virtual teams a collection of individuals who
  are geographically /or organisationally or
  otherwise dispersed and who collaborate via
  communication and information technologies in
  order to accomplish a specific goal. Virtual
  teams have a common goal and rely on technology
  (Zigurs, 2003)

10
Methodology

• Qualitative Research
• Interpretivist approach, that is interpretation
  or the act of making sense out of social
  interaction (Glesne Peshkin, 1992). Use of
  thick description (Geertz 1973),
• Conceptual framework
• Strengths-based theory
• Action research

11
Methodology

• Trialling different peer supervision models in
  virtual teams using action research
• Step One Participant interviews (pre trial)
• Step Two Peer supervision groups, 4 groups of 4
  (total 16), meet once a month, for 12 months,
  using technology (phone or video link) Each
  session is for one hour.

12
Methodology continues

• Step Three On-line evaluations of each
  supervision session completed by participants
  monthly for 12 months, immediately after each
  peer supervision session.
• Step Four Individual exit interviews with each
  participant at the end of the 12 months trial
  period to evaluate the peer supervision models
  and processes.

13
Methodology - continued

• Step Five Four focus groups will be conducted by
  the investigator as part of the evaluation of the
  peer supervision groups.

14
Structured Supervision Model

• Use of The New Zealand Mentoring Centre (2000)
  The Power of Peer Supervision
• Very positive feedback from participants
• Use of eight prescribed processes
• practice review, good news analysis, upsetting
  or critical incidents, Veridical Report,
  Professional Issues Review, Peer Review, Dress
  Rehearsals, Peer Responses

15
Data

• 2 x Individual interviews with the participants
  (1x interview pre trial
• 1x interview post trial )
• 12 online evaluations per participant using JCU
  web technology
• 3 focus groups at conclusion of trial.
• 2 x focus groups at mid point (after 6 months of
  trial)

16
Data Analysis

• Individual interviews will be analysed and main
  themes identified and collated
• Data in the monthly evaluations on LearnJCU will
  be collated Significant feedback will be noted
  and fed back to participants monthly in line with
  the action research component of this research
• Focus group discussion will be taped, transcribed
  and analysed. Use of tecnological help such as
  the Nvivo program is being considered

17
Recruitment

• Participants have been recruited through contacts
  with two North Queensland organisations and a
  professional body, the AASW North Queensland and
  Queensland Branches. An email was forwarded to
  these contacts who forwarded it in turn to their
  employees and members, inviting interested social
  workers to participate in the peer supervision
  group trials.

18
Recruitment continued

• Some individual social workers in rural and
  remote areas outside Queensland, also interested
  in participating, were contacted and forwarded
  information through their networks
• Participation was voluntary
• After 6 months, invited further participants by
  emails to SA and NT AASW membership and
  interested individuals at some conferences

19
Ethical Considerations

• The research has ethics approval through JCUs
  Ethics committee.
• All participants were voluntary, and could
  withdraw at any time.
• All participants were professionals

20
Early Data Analysis

• Recruited 20 participants from 6 states
• 4 x WA 6 x Qld 3 x SA 3 x NSW 2 x Tas 2 x
  Vic
• Years of experience
• 6 lt 5yrs 5 x 5-10yrs 4 x 11-20yrs 5 gt
  20yrs
• Receive Supervision No 75 (15)
• Yes 25
  (5)
• Employing agency type Government -15
  
• Non-
  government - 5

21
Early Data Analysis

• Participants reasons to become involved
• to sustain the profession, very
  important, free, cost an issue, finding a
  good supervisor is hard, havent had
  supervision, to be a role model lead by
  example, to get supervision
• One comment from a participant The AASW
  rhetoric re supervision is not matched in the
  workplace

22
Early data analysis

• Participant feedback on experience so far
• The mix of people seems good and I think that
  we will all have something that we can learn from
  each other and contribute to each others
  practice
• The fact that this group was meeting solely
  for the purpose of providing peer supervision,
  that we all had a commitment and a motivation to
  be involved was of most benefit.
• I think the group size is very workable

23
Initial data analysis

• Interaction with co-workers and exploring
  their work environments as well as professional
  practice models has been most beneficial
• Part of the discussion was a debrief for me.
  I was feeling tired and overworked but the
  discussion was stimulating and energising

24
More participant feedback

• Re a 2nd session of a group Session very
  informative, interesting and stimulating.
  Excellent quality of information from the 3 SW
  presenting their Good News Stories which were
  counselling, case management and community
  development. Good trust and openness in the
  group.
• Of most benefit was the high quality of
  information from all 3 Good News presentations.
  Lots of process was discussed and social work
  assessment, intervention and advocacy were
  clearly demonstrated.

25
Feedback continued..

• ..Changes in the lives of the clients was
  positive and significant to them. SW theory was
  being put into the workers practices. Great
  teaching and learning for me from listening to
  them. I felt I gained a richness of ideas. I also
  realised how helpful SW supervision is in
  overcoming the professional isolation of being a
  sole worker in multi-disciplinary teams. I am
  reminded of the need for reflective practice

26
Feedback from Focus Groups June and July 2007

• The level of trust developed was such that we
  could expose our vulnerabilities and yet be safe
• Having the peer supervision was de-stressing
  Good support, reflecting with other people
  encouraged a time of reflection (on practice)
• Multiple perspectives good

27
Focus Group feedback

• Hearing only vs seeing and hearing a different
  way of working initial struggle but then made
  me focus more
• NZ Model accepted used a range of processes in
  the model. Good process tools used well.
• Choices in the model good. Its processes and
  language good.

28
Focus group feedback

• Shared Social Work knowledge sharing with
  people who understood. Purposeful and positive
  encouraging
• Sense of belonging
• Good value supervision values clear, ethics and
  frameworks. Perspectives from across the sector
  slice of different organisations

29
Focus group feedback

• Advantages of peer supervision include that you
  get a slice of peoples experience. If limited
  to one supervisor, you are limited to their
  experience. Greater exchange from more careers
  more opportunities
• Took a commitment. Sometimes not prepared
  difference in quality if not prepared.

30
Focus group feedback contd

• Forced me once a month to think about my role,
  skills and issues as a social worker
• In different areas gained information,
  knowledge and skills
• Prepared looked to the model.
• Not prepared winging it model.

31
Focus group feedback

• Unstructured unprepared
• Minimum size 3, for an hour. Two people too
  small.
• One hour for 4 too short even 1 hour 20minutes
  would be ok for four. Three in one hour worked
  well.
• Anonymity by phone contributing strength.
• Supervision with line manager much more guarded
  / filtered

32
Feedback from exit interviews,July 2007

• I experience supervision one to one and meet
  with a group of social workers in a group
  regularly. This peer supervision is on a par with
  those experiences, but different. It is similar
  in terms of impact, however, I have put less time
  into the peer supervision

33
Exit interview feedback

• The social work values and processes were
  beneficial. What developed exceeded expectations
  great camaraderie
• It was a developing process where other people
  could discuss cases. Could give and receive. Good
  to offer support.

34
Exit interviews continued

• Evolving process. Had to build trust and
  camaraderie.
• Flexibility proceeded by structure.
• Need structure or it doesnt work at all.
• Model interesting. Started structured. Then
  structure to develop flexability in the model

35
Issues to date

• Cost of teleconference calls - - now resolved
• Lack of access to video link technology
• Participants travelling across large geographic
  areas affecting availability
• Turnover of rural staff changing jobs,
  resignations no longer able to participate
• Two of the four groups folded after the first few
  months (reasons included too busy to continue
  involvement under-staffed cant commit to
  extra activities un-structured format not
  meeting needs resignations job changes). Fifth
  group struggled with numbers, availability to
  meet.

36
Next Steps

• The 12 months trial has finished
• Have completed focus groups for 2 groups at
  the mid point (at 6 months) and with three groups
  at 12 months.
• Have completed exit interviews with all
  participants
• Comprehensive data analysis yet to be done

37
In Conclusion

• The research is relevant and important because
• Gap in current literature
• provide a method of supervision that will assist
  in the retention of skilled professionals in
  rural and remote areas
• of interest to other allied health professionals
  for similar reasons
• contribute to the acceptance and use of peer
  supervision as a preferred and valid form of
  supervision for social workers
• Contribute to the acceptance of using technology
  as a legitimate method in the provision of
  professional supervision

38
In Conclusion

• The trial has provided evidence of the experience
  and effectiveness of different models of peer
  supervision
• Recommendations for best practice in peer
  supervision using technology will be developed on
  this basis

39
Contact details

• For more information, contact
• amanda.nickson_at_jcu.edu.au
• Phone [phone]