Background Regular supervision has been shown to increase the level of satisfaction of staff within their work environment, through increased job satisfaction and wellbeing (Bégat, Severinsson. J Nurs Manag. 2006; 14(8): 610–616). It is recommended by the Care Quality Commission (CQC. Supporting information and guidance: supporting effective clinical supervision. 2013) and the Nursing & Midwifery Council (NMC. Clinical supervision for registered nurses. 2008). Supervision is not always practised in a planned and supportive manner (Turner, Hill. Ment Health Nurs. 2011; 31(3): 8–12), particularly in non-clinical areas (Rothwell, Kehoe, Farook, et al. BMJ Open. 2021; 11(9):e052929).

Aims To introduce a robust system of supervision encompassing all staff and volunteers within the organisation. We recognise that this may involve different models of supervision, but sessions should take place at least quarterly, be appropriately recorded, and auditable.

Method A baseline survey was carried out to establish the current level of supervision taking place. A supervision policy was developed, and education supporting this was provided, as well as education for potential supervisors. Implementation planned in three stages, to clinical staff, non-clinical staff, and volunteers. An audit was planned for three months after implementation, to check that staff have a named supervisor and to measure the take-up of supervision. A second audit, to evaluate the quality of the supervision, will take place six months later.

Results The baseline audit showed that 13% of clinical staff rarely or never had supervision. Notes were taken in 50% of cases. The most common topics discussed were around wellbeing and development. The first post-implementation audit is underway. A stratified random sample of staff are being contacted to see evidence of supervision having taken place. Supervision trees will be examined to ensure that all staff have named mentors. A second post-implementation audit is planned for November. This will focus on the quality of supervision taking place.

Conclusions Our baseline audit demonstrated that most clinical staff have some form of supervision, although it is often irregular and varying in quality. Most clinical staff see the value of more regular supervision. We have now implemented a more robust system for supervision, which is currently being audited.