Authors:
Shannon Dorsey, Rashed AlRasheed, Suzanne EU Kerns, Rosemary D Meza, Noah Triplett, Esther Deblinger, Nathaniel Jungbluth, Lucy Berliner, Lavangi Naithani, and Michael D Pullmann
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
✪ Open Access
Published: May 2025
Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Research and Practice
Abstract:
Background
Clinicians need supports beyond training to deliver evidence-based treatments with fidelity. Workplace-based clinical supervision often is a commonly provided support in community mental health, yet too few studies have empirically examined supervision and its impact on clinician fidelity and treatment delivery.
Method
Building on a Washington State-funded evidence-based treatment initiative (CBT+), we conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT), testing two supervision conditions delivered by workplace-based supervisors (supervisors employed by community mental health organizations). The RCT followed a supervision-as-usual (SAU) phase for comparison. The treatment of focus was trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT). Clinicians (N = 238) from 25 organizations participated in the study across the SAU baseline and RCT phases. In the RCT phase, clinicians were randomized to either symptom and fidelity monitoring (SFM) or SFM and behavioral rehearsal (SFM + BR). For BR, clinicians engaged in a short role play of an upcoming treatment element. Supervisors delivered both conditions, with regular study monitoring for drift. Clinicians audiorecorded therapy sessions with enrolled clients, and masked coders coded a subset of recordings for adherence to TF-CBT. One hundred and thirty-three clinicians had recorded TF-CBT session data for 258 youth. We examined six adherence outcomes, including potential moderators.
Results
Results of generalized estimating equations indicated that there were no real differences on adherence outcomes for experimental conditions (SFM, SFM + BR) compared to SAU. Adherence scores in the baseline SAU phase and the RCT conditions were high. Only one interaction was significant.
Conclusions
Contrary to our hypotheses, we did not see improvements in adherence with the RCT conditions. However, nonsignificant findings seem best explained by clinicians’ acceptable/high adherence in SAU. This study was conducted within the context of a long-standing, state-funded EBT initiative, in which clinicians and their supervisors receive training and support, and in which participating community mental health organizations have adopted and supported TF-CBT.
Trial Registration
ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01800266
Plain Language Summary
Clinicians often receive training in evidence-based treatments (EBTs), but training alone is not enough for clinicians to deliver EBTs well. They need other supports. One of the necessary supports is clinical supervision. In public community mental health organizations, which are often resource-constrained, routine clinical supervision is a commonly available support. However, its potential for supporting high-quality EBT delivery is not well understood. This study looked at supervision and clinicians’ delivery of trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT), an EBT for youth who have mental health problems subsequent to trauma. We found that clinicians who received workplace-based supervision on TF-CBT from TF-CBT-trained supervisors, within the context of a state-funded EBT initiative, delivered TF-CBT well. This initiative supported delivery by providing training and supervisor-specific supports. In a second phase of the study, we rigorously tested supervisors’ use of two specific technique packages. These packages included having supervisors review: (a) graphed client mental health symptoms across treatment and clinicians’ report of TF-CBT elements delivered each session or (b) these plus having clinicians do a brief demonstration of how they would deliver an upcoming TF-CBT element to their client, so supervisors could “see” clinicians’ skill and provide feedback. Contrary to expectations, we did not see important differences in clinicians’ TF-CBT delivery. This may be because the clinicians enrolled in our study were already delivering TF-CBT well and, therefore, there was less opportunity for changes. Future studies should explore if these techniques are more helpful for specific situations or clinicians.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**