A practice supervisor is defined as a role that supports and supervises learners within the practice environment (Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), 2018). This article describes and discusses the implementation of a practice supervisor preparation and training programme for final-year undergraduate healthcare students in the fields of adult, child and young person's, and mental health nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, paramedic sciences and operating department practice. There is currently a dearth of published literature describing the implementation of practice supervisor preparation in the UK for this group of students. The NMC (2023) states that practice supervisor training must be integrated into the pre-registration curriculum as this will help prepare newly qualified nurses to take on the supervision role. Rowbotham and Owen (2015) acknowledged that supervisors are essential to the functioning of student supervision, and should support students by offering suggestions for improvement, identify strengths and limitations, communicate expectations, give positive reinforcement, and correct, without belittling them. The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) (2017) also asserts the need for students to be prepared appropriately for their role in supporting learners once qualified, meaning that all relevant newly qualified practitioners require appropriate preparation in the final year of their undergraduate studies. The practice supervisor preparation programme described here addresses this need as it provides final-year students with the skills and knowledge to embark on the role of practice supervisor when qualified and also to allow further development throughout their career. It has been identified that key skills, such as delegation, teaching, facilitating, advocating, supporting, and providing timely feedback are fundamental in the practice supervisor role (Stainer et al, 2022; NMC, 2023).
Practice supervisor training programme
The practice supervisor training programme (Figure 1) was delivered throughout the final academic year for students. It was facilitated by the personal tutors for the student groups, which, on average, included 40 students in each cohort. The content consisted of two pre-recorded voiceover PowerPoint presentations of 1 hour duration each. Students, in groups, reviewed the NMC (2023) and HCPC (2017) standards, which identify and define the practical roles of a practice supervisor and practice assessor. These sessions also covered the importance of placement induction, learning styles required and an explanation of the interview process. A final 3-hour face-to-face group session was facilitated by a member of the university practice learning adviser (UPLA) team, whose role is specifically to support practice in this way.
The students were encouraged to consolidate their learning on the programme and build on their knowledge by engaging in discussion about relevant case study examples that were aimed at enabling students to better understand all the requirements of the practice supervisor role, through guided reflection.
Evaluation methods
Evaluation data were collected by way of a short questionnaire issued on completion of the final session of the programme, all attendees were invited to complete the questionnaire anonymously and return their completions to the UPLA team member who conducted the final session. A total of 352 questionnaires were distributed to the entire population of attendees on the training programme. Each evaluation was returned directly to the UPLA team member at the end of the session. These data were collected as a natural consequence of the programme delivery (ie, routine programme evaluation data) and so formal university ethical approval was not required, as clarified in the university's own research ethics code of practice. The evaluation data were, however, collected in line with the General Data Protection Regulations/Data Protection Act 2018 and were exclusively anonymous.
Questions included four Likert scale statements with five response options covering the content and delivery of the session, materials used, opportunity to participate in group discussions and a statement asking attendees to rate how well the programme has prepared them for taking on the role of the practice supervisor. The questionnaire also included an open question asking attendees if they had any qualitative comments about the programme that they wished to make. All Likert response options were coded 0 to 5, with 0 being the most negative and 5 being the most positive response. Data were managed and analysed using descriptive statistics within Microsoft Excel, summarising responses to each question for all attendees, this included overall responses and group comparisons. As this was a programme evaluation it was not appropriate to use inferential statistical analysis. The qualitative comments received were collated and analysed using simple thematic framework analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006).
Results
Questionnaire responses for the whole group are presented in Table 1; the variation in number of responses for each question (range: 344–352) is due to some attendees not completing all the questions.
| Very poor | Poor | Good | Very good | Excellent | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The content of the training materials (n=352) | 3 (0.9%) | 2 (0.6%) | 114 (32.4%) | 146 (41.5%) | 87 (24.7% |
| The delivery of the sessions (n=350) | 5 (1.4%) | 4 (1.1%) | 99 (28.3%) | 139 (39.7%) | 103 (29.4% |
| The opportunity to participate in group discussions (n=344) | 3 (0.9%) | 4 (1.2%) | 87 (25.3%) | 144 (41.9%) | 106 (30.8% |
| Very underprepared | Underprepared | Not sure | Well prepared | Very well prepared | |
| Following the training, how well prepared do you feel for taking on the role of a practice supervisor? (n=347) | 1 (0.3%) | 6 (1.7%) | 50 (14.4%) | 221 (63.7%) | 69 (19.9% |
352 questionnaires were returned but not all participants answered all questions, percentages do not take into account missing responses
Table 1 shows that overall, most attendees found the content and the delivery of the programme and their opportunity for discussions to be good, very good or excellent, showing overall that content was positively evaluated by 98.6% of attendees, delivery at 97.4% and opportunity for discussion at 98%. Table 1 also shows the sense of preparedness the attendees felt after completing the programme with 83.6% (n=290) stating they felt well or very well prepared for the role of the practice supervisor;14.4% (n=50) of attendees were not sure, with another 2% (n=7) stating they did not feel well enough prepared.
For the seven professional groups, the breakdown of scores for the content, delivery and opportunity for group discussions were similar and so are not reported here. However, the responses to the question about how well attendees felt prepared for taking on the role of the practice supervisor for each of the groups (including the three distinct fields of nursing) are presented in Table 2. This shows the variation in how well each group felt prepared for the practice supervisor role, with the overall majority feeling well prepared, except the student mental health nurses group who did show a slightly different trend. The ‘not sure’ response for each group identifies where uncertainties are, with most groups (except child and young person's nursing) having a noticeable number of students (group range 9–25%) who would have benefited from more clarity of role within the programme.
| Field of study | Very underprepared | Underprepared | Not sure | Well prepared | Very well prepared |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adult nursing (n=202) | 0 | 2 (1.0%) | 28 (13.9%) | 128 (63.4%) | 44 (21.8%) |
| Children and young person's nursing (n=17) | 0 | 0 | 1 (5.9%) | 14 (82.4%) | 2 (11.8%) |
| Mental health nursing (n=28) | 1 (3.6%) | 3 (10.7%) | 7 (25.0%) | 12 (42.9%) | 5 (17.9%) |
| Occupational therapy (n=21) | 0 | 0 | 4 (19.0%) | 12 (57.1%) | 5 (23.8%) |
| Paramedic science (n=27) | 0 | 1 (3.7%) | 5 (18.5%) | 19 (70.4%) | 2 (7.4%) |
| Physiotherapy (n=33) | 0 | 0 | 3 (9.1%) | 23 (69.7%) | 7 (21.2%) |
| Operating department practice (n=19) | 0 | 0 | 2 (10.5%) | 13 (68.4%) | 4 (21.1%) |
All 352 evaluations were individually reviewed, focusing primarily on the qualitative comments. Large categories were created and common themes within the comments were identified. These were then filtered into smaller categories, with the three themes included. These were content, delivery and presentation, which can be seen in Table 3. The core principles of a thematic analysis framework were used to guide this process (Braun and Clarke, 2006).
| Content | Delivery | Presentation |
|---|---|---|
| Helpful videos | Interactive | Informative |
| More case studies | Very well delivered | Well presented |
| Good overview | Engaging | Engaging presenters |
| Useful understanding | Group work | Interactive |
| Enjoyed group discussion | More interactive activities | Good presentation of material |
| Personal experiences | Smaller groups | Interesting |
| Reflective opportunities | Delivery in one day | Good overview of the role |
| More tools in conflict resolution | Reduce repetition | |
| Motivational strategies |
Content
The first theme identified was the content of the training. Students indicated that the videos, case studies and group discussions were beneficial and enhanced their learning. Other students also stated that reflecting on personal experiences and discussing these was of great benefit. This was substantiated by further comments, which included that students valued the regular opportunity to reflect during the training.
‘All content covered was relevant and further adds to the skills needed to be a good supervisor.’
‘The content was very informative.’
‘Case studies are quite helpful.’
Feedback from students identified that the training could be developed further:
‘More tools in conflict resolution or motivational tactics to use once qualified.’
‘Helpful if the first two sessions were closer to the final session, as it seems like ages ago that we did them.’
Delivery
One of the themes identified was course delivery. Most students commented on how interactive the activities were, which supported their learning. The group work exercises were seen as particularly valuable for students. It was also noted that students felt that the face-to-face seminar was much more conducive to learning compared with the pre-recorded presentations.
‘Good interactions and group discussions.’
‘Enjoyed the group work and chats, as it was good to hear other perspectives.’
‘More face-to-face session to engage better.’
Students suggested that the seminars would benefit from smaller groups and requested consideration to reduce the seminar timeframes, to either one day or consecutive days. Some students found the consolidation section of seminar three, which reviewed their learning to date, slightly repetitive and stated that it would be helpful to reduce the time spent on this activity.
‘Smaller groups would have been more practical.’
‘The sessions were very informative but were very similar.’
Presentation
The final theme identified was in relation to the presentation. Numerous students found the presentation informative, interactive, and engaging. Students also commented on how they found the presentation gave them a good understanding and overview of the practice supervisor role:
‘The training was very informative; I feel as though I will take on these skills to improve the student experience.’
‘Good presentation and engaging presenters.’
On the contrary, some students requested that more scenarios and interactive activities to be included to further support their learning.
‘More interactive activities.’
As shown in Table 2, students were asked how well prepared they were to take on the role of practice supervisor after this training. On reviewing the comments, multiple students referred to the question asked above. Some students commented on either not feeling adequately prepared or overwhelmed in this part of their training.
‘Don't feel like this is top of our agenda right now when we are so overwhelmed at the moment.’
‘More beneficial once qualified feels overwhelming as a student.’
Other students worried that the responsibility of taking on the practice supervisor role would be slightly overwhelming for them when they had only just qualified:
‘Concerns regarding qualifying and being a supervisor straight away.’
‘Might be too much responsibility whilst we get used to the role.’
However, most students felt prepared and identified that the training offered them the platform to be able to take on this role once qualified:
‘Good idea to be ready qualified to help student.’
‘I feel better and more prepared.’
‘Excellent course, I will benefit by being aware of my possible future role of practice supervisor and assessor.’
‘Setting up a good foundation – knowledge for mentoring once qualified.’
Discussion
The evaluation results reported here illustrate that practice supervisor preparation can be effectively delivered when located in the final year for undergraduate healthcare students in adult, child and young person's and mental health nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, paramedic sciences and operating department practice. This is consistent with the expectations of the NMC (2023) and HCPC (2017), which identify that practice supervisors need to be suitably prepared for the role and that there are expectations that healthcare students will gain understanding of supervision during their course.
Currently, there are no other comparable studies or literature that describe the process of implementing this training into pre-registration programmes. Therefore, from reviewing the curriculum it was deemed that this training is most appropriately placed within the final year and there is some benefit to providing this input while students are still actively engaged in their practice under their own practice supervision. This will help establish a degree of continuity of experience as students can draw from real and meaningful experiences of their own supervision to better understand this process as well as begin forming insights into their own future role as a supervisor. This would include effective communication of expectations, positive reinforcement of strengths and areas for improvement in a supportive supervision role, as described by Rowbotham and Owen (2015). However, it is recognised from the student feedback that this intensifies the pressure that they are under within their final year, which needs to be considered. It is identified that reflection can be a key component in supporting students in their development and, therefore, liaison with local organisations was completed to ensure there is time allocated within their preceptorship programme and at induction to their post-qualification roles.
The qualitative evaluation data revealed that content, delivery style and mode of presentation were felt to be the most important aspects for the attendees. It is recognised that training needs to evolve to meet the needs of the changing landscape of health care and support the next generation of health professionals (Khurshid et al, 2020). The interactive activities embedded within the programme, which the students found valuable and useful for their own learning, were much more effective in person than through pre-recorded lectures or remote presentations.
Limitations to this study have been identified, which include the recognition of gaining feedback directly after the training, which does limit the time allowed for students to reflect. This practice supervisor preparation programme evaluation has indicated specific areas for development on this programme that the programme facilitators have integrated into the current programme and planned future delivery:
Conclusion
This article has identified how practice supervisor training has been implemented into the final year curriculum for healthcare students at one higher education institution. The findings from this evaluation identify that there is significant benefit in including this training. However, it is recognised that, following the evaluation feedback, adaptations to the programme are required, as identified here. This information adds to the field of the role of practice supervisor and the training for this role, where there is currently very limited literature addressing the context of pre-registration training. Moving forward, it is acknowledged that further research would be beneficial. In particular, reviewing feedback at a later stage once students have qualified and are within a preceptorship period.