A Systematic Approach to Peer Group Supervision

Identifying the priorities for supervision by lived experience researchers: a Q sort study

BACKGROUND

Lived experience researchers draw on their lived and living experiences to either lead on or inform research. Their personal experiences are relevant to the research topic and so they must manage the interplay of their health and healthcare experiences with the research, population, and data they work with, as well as the more general challenges of being a researcher. Lived experience researchers must navigate these dilemmas in addition to queries over their competency, due to issues relating to intersectionality and epistemic injustice. This justifies a motivation to better understand the experiences of lived experience researchers and develop appropriate and personalised supervision based on their preferences and needs.

METHODS

Q methodology was used to identify a collection of identity-related issues that impact lived experience researchers during PhD research in the context of the UK. These issues were presented in the form of 54 statements to 18 lived experience researchers to prioritise as topics to explore in supervision.

RESULT

It was found that lived experiences researchers could be grouped into three distinct factors following an inverted factor analysis: Factor 1: Strengthening my identity, skills, growth, and empowerment; Factor 2: Exploring the emotional and relational link I have with the research and Factor 3: Navigating my lived and professional experiences practically and emotionally. The findings suggest that there may be three types of lived experience researchers, each with different needs from supervision, suggesting the population is heterogeneous.

CONCLUSION

The research identified a deeper understanding of the needs of lived experience researchers and highlights the importance of personalised supervision according to the individual needs of the researcher and their preferences for supervision. The findings reinforce the importance of integrating a clinical dimension into supervision to support the needs of all lived experience researchers.

Peer reflective groups: Creating a nurturing and safe community for aspiring clinical psychologists to build their collective voice

Assistant Psychologist (AP) and Honorary Assistant Psychologist (HAP) roles provide an opportunity to gain the experience needed to progress onto the Clinical Psychology doctorate, making them very competitive to obtain. Nationally, there have been reports that people fulfilling these roles can face a number of challenges including poorly defined job descriptions, difficulty developing a voice within hierarchical organisation structures and balancing competing demands on time. This paper tells the story of a peer reflective group set up for APs and HAPs in the paediatric health psychology team, to provide a supportive space for aspiring psychologists to meet together. The evolution of the group and its impact are discussed, and recommendations for setting up similar groups in other services are made.

Organizing and Maintaining Peer Supervision Groups

Peer supervision groups (PSGs) are attractive to psychotherapists for many reasons, including ongoing consultation and support, networking, and combating professional isolation. These leaderless groups offer opportunities for interpersonal learning from peers, and the parallel process within PSGs can be an important consultative tool. Unfortunately, many PSGs fail. PSGs benefit from careful attention to contract, task, gatekeeping, and group process, including resistances and dynamics of competition, and shame.

Challenges Highlighted During Peer Supervision by Mental Health Nurses and Social Workers Recently Trained as Case Managers in Sweden

This study looked at 13 mental health nurses and social workers who were recently trained as case managers (CMs) and the work-related challenges they faced in community mental health services. Data were collected during ten peer supervisions sessions. Participants expressed pride and enthusiasm about their new function as CMs, but they also acknowledged that their new position meant they had to confront existing systems and posed several challenges, including organizational hindrances, economic prerequisites, nominated administrators, role function, and model fidelity. We conclude that the existing organizations seemed to be unprepared to hold and facilitate more person-centered approaches, such as designating CMs. The model fidelity is important, but has to be flexible according to clients' daily state.