Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRast, Katrina Anne
dc.date.accessioned2018-06-27T00:01:10Z
dc.date.available2018-06-27T00:01:10Z
dc.date.issued2018-05
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11122/8741
dc.descriptionThesis (Ph.D.) University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2018en_US
dc.description.abstractClinical supervision is widely considered to be an essential part of psychotherapy training, encouraging trainee growth, and ensuring the best possible outcome for patients. The use of routine outcome monitoring (ROM) systems in clinical practice has been shown to be beneficial in improving patient outcome within psychotherapy. In addition to its utility in clinical practice, research has suggested that the use of ROM systems and patient feedback within the supervisory process may also have a positive impact on patient outcome. Despite these potential benefits, there is no existing literature about how supervisors identify and work with patients at risk for deterioration within the supervision process. This study aimed to explore the influence on regulatory focus and the use of ROM systems within supervision. Additionally, this study sought to explore two questions: 1) How do supervisors currently identify supervisee patients who are unresponsive to treatment or deteriorating? and 2) How do supervisors currently work with unresponsive or deteriorating patients in supervision? Using a quantitative approach, results suggest that the majority of supervisors rely heavily on clinical judgment in order to identify treatment non-responders and irregularly use ROM systems in order to identify these patients. In addition, the results suggest that the majority of supervisors respond to deteriorating patients in a way that coincides with existing literature pertaining to common practices within psychotherapy. Furthermore, there appears to be a prominent lack of understanding of the purpose and use of ROM systems within supervision. Finally, results indicate that promotion scores are a predictor of the use of ROM within supervision. Implications for research and clinical practices are discussed, in addition to limitations and future directions of the study.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.subjectPsychotherapyen_US
dc.subjectOutcome assessmenten_US
dc.subjectPsychotherapy patientsen_US
dc.subjectSupervision ofen_US
dc.subjectCareen_US
dc.subjectHealth risk assessmenten_US
dc.subjectIntermediate careen_US
dc.subjectPsychotherapist and patienten_US
dc.subjectPsychotherapistsen_US
dc.subjectTraining ofen_US
dc.subjectEducation (Continuing education)en_US
dc.subjectEvidence-based psychotherapyen_US
dc.titleIdentifying and working with non-responsive and deteriorating patients within the process of supervision: methods of practicing supervisorsen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.type.degreephden_US
dc.identifier.departmentDepartment of Psychologyen_US
dc.contributor.chairGifford, Valerie
dc.contributor.committeeDavid, Eric John
dc.contributor.committeeGeist, Charles
dc.contributor.committeeLardon, Cecile
dc.contributor.committeeWhipple, Jason
refterms.dateFOA2020-03-05T17:02:40Z


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Rast_K_2018.pdf
Size:
2.020Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record