Putting the ‘Virtual’ into Supervision during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond

This study examined the experiences of practicing Children’s Services Social Workers in a London Local Authority accessing virtual (online) social work supervision during the COVID-19 pandemic between March 2020 and January 2021. This study applied a reflective framework and guiding theories for exploring how supervision brings opportunities for reflective learning, and it considered individual needs within supervision. Study methods comprised an anonymised online questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. Twenty-two participants completed the questionnaire, and eight participants took part in the semi-structured interviews. This research aimed to explore the impacts on practitioners of the change from face-to-face to ‘virtual’ supervision and if all core elements of supervision are addressed. The findings suggest that there was a mixed experience for supervisees with some elements of the supervision functions being consistently met, and others being more variable. Generally, participants found virtual supervision a positive experience, whilst however missing some face-to-face elements. Having a pre-existing relationship with the supervisor was noted to help, and connectivity was also highlighted as important. However, for some participants, particular elements of supervision appeared to have been missed altogether such as Continuing Professional Development (CPD), and part of the Mediation function.


Introduction
Professional supervision is an integral part of social work practice; a space to reflect, learn, and be guided. Academic literature has identified the multidimensionality of supervision and potential impacts on outcomes for children and vulnerable adults and their families (Munro 2010). Studies have shown the positive outcome of regular consistent supervision and the impact when this falls away. We will turn to Manthorpe et al. (2015), Egan, Maidment, and Connolly (2018) and Wilkins and Antonopoulou (2019) to consider this in further depth.
Since March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a change in how social work is delivered within Local Authorities. The lockdowns have necessitated an increase in using virtual methods of communication including for service-user visits, professional meetings, and court appearances. Professional supervision has also needed to change from face-to-face to 'virtual' online sessions. This was a significant departure from the norm in most Local Authorities. The function of professional supervision includes core components of critical reflection, decision-making, case management and oversight (Morrison 2005). It is considered as being important also for supporting staff wellbeing and a supportive space to critically reflect (Fook, White, and Gardner 2006) and to reflect on the emotional impact that the work has on the self and others (Howe 2008, p.195).
At the heart of social work supervision is the aim to promote good practice with service users, as set out by Kadushin and Harkness (2002). The importance of supervision should not be underestimated, it is an essential space for critical reflection, managing emotions and promoting balance and reasoning (Munro 2010, para. 4.10, Wonnacott 2012. So how does this vary if the structure and regularity of supervision changes? In their study of 314 social workers, Wilkins and Antonopoulou (2019) found that a constant that was attended to in supervision was management oversight and case accountability, which was prioritised, as part of providing a safe and effective service for children and their families. However, for those practitioners who had access to regular one to one and group supervision, the support gained from supervision was much wider. Oşvat, Marc, and Makai-Dimeny (2014) note that organisational culture powerfully influences the ways in which workers perceive themselves and their role within an organisational context.
A theme that has arisen is the importance of peer supervision and reflection and how this holistically enhances the supervision experience. Egan, Maidment, and Connolly 2018 emphasised the ways in which organisational cultures promote supervision as an important mechanism of practice improvement and professional development. In their study of 675 social workers from a range of backgrounds and experiences, Egan, Maidment, and Connolly (2018) found that access to supervision varied, that there was disparity in length and frequency. The functions of administration, support and education were generally met but sometimes at a basic level, attending to data as part of considering practice. Manthorpe et al. (2015) conducted a longitudinal study focussing on newly Qualified Social Workers (NQSWs). They noted that a more supportive early start was apparent (although still variable). This seemed to tail off as the worker became more experienced. They noted a variedness in expectations, of frequency and length of supervision. There was also an open-door policy which supplemented this to an extent. However, being engaged with the job, which was influenced by frequency of supervision, was associated 336 CONNELL with higher levels of job satisfaction and intention to stay. So, quality supervision is a highly important element of social work practice. This takes us to the purpose of the research following the initial UK COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. When considering the implications for the profession, during this time of increased anxiety (Druss 2020) it should be noted that virtual supervision enabled social work supervision to take place on a regular basis. From the initial lockdown and during the times of transition that followed, the participants had regular access to their managers, teams, and services. This ensured that a safe place was created for planning, reflection, developing and reviewing multiple hypotheses (Morrison 2005). The implications of this were that safe practice was promoted within the organisation, connectedness with staff colleagues and confident multi-agency working continued. All of which served to strengthen social work practice, despite some variety in individual experiences. An enhanced service was provided service users at a particularly vulnerable time. Moving forward, virtual social work supervision still has a place when balancing working from home with office working could fit well with the hybrid working that has emerged.
At the time of conducting this study, available research on these new professional practices appears to be very limited, particularly that research which directly explored experiences of virtual social work supervision. However, Tedam (2021) is one such exception, exploring the experiences of 20 black African social workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in England via semi-structured interviews. She used Critical Race Theory as a framework and argued that the pandemic had resulted in 'opportunities for discrimination ' (p.1721), and disparities in treatment. Tedam (2021) found that for locum social workers, there had been the expectation to work through the pandemic, whereas some permanent and often white counterparts took paid leave, worked from home, or signed off sick. Participants also reported experiences of supervision ending abruptly due to connection issues, which is an important element, given the sensitive role of supervision, the need for connectedness and the scope for critical reflection. The study did however also identify some positive factors including examples of engaging in a good standard of supervision and feeling a sense of connectedness. This paper by Tedam (2021) offers some important insights but is a small study that prompts the need for further research.
There were however some pertinent studies more generally in relation to social worker's experiences during the pandemic and of virtual supervision with other professional groups. Bentham, Driver, and Stark (2021) explored the wellbeing of a Child & Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) team and looked at the adaptations made for working during lockdown. The study highlighted that there was a significant link between individual worries about the pandemic, and the importance of support and reflective space. These authors concluded that CAMHS clinicians needed additional support, guidance, and training to support their practice and promote wellbeing. Chaisty and Cunningham (2021)  supervision is a central part of regular practice within the field of clinical psychology. They employed a mixed method approach to explore the experiences of 12 practitioners, using questionnaires and open-ended questions. They found that overall, the participants highly rated the virtual supervision they had received but still preferred direct, face to face supervision. They also noted that a pre-existing supervisory relationship was important and that participants reported that it had been more challenging to build a new supervisory relationship online.
Online 'virtual' supervision is a comparatively new experience for professional social workers in the UK and has now been occurring for over three years. This research aimed to more fully understand the experiences of social workers with online supervision in order to better understand which elements of supervision work best virtually and which were preferred face-to-face in order to enable optimal practice.

Research Aims and Objectives
The core research objectives were to explore which aspects of supervision are positively impacted by virtue of being online rather than face-to-face, to explore which aspects of supervision are negatively impacted by virtue of being online rather than face-to-face, and to explore if social workers see value in maintaining some form of online supervision post-pandemic.

Methods
This exploratory study utilised a mixed method approach. An email was sent out to all children's social workers by the Principal Social Worker for Children and Families. This was via the communications website for children's services. It brought the opportunity for willing participants to engage anonymously. The next step was to complete an anonymous online survey using Microsoft-Forms. The online survey consisted of seven closed quantitative ranking questions, and three open qualitative questions. These were informed by the 4x4x4 elements of social work supervision, as set out by Morrison 2005. The final item within the online survey invited participants to give their contact details if they wished to participate in a 30 to 45-minute follow-up semi-structured interview. The interviews were digitally recorded via Microsoft-Stream with agreement from the participants.
All responses have been anonymised and identified by code only in order to maintain confidentiality.
Ethical considerations were managed by engagement being entirely optional, participants being able to participate anonymously (via the Microsoft forms). Furthermore, ensuring that there was no supervisory relationship 338 CONNELL between the author and the participants and ensuring that ethical approval was granted.
Participants were selected purposively (Creswell and Poth 2018) due to the specific experience of having 'virtual' supervision for an extended period during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible participants in the study were all social workers within the Local Authority who did not have a line-managerial or supervisory relationship to the researcher. Twenty-two of the eligible social workers within the Local Authority volunteered to complete the anonymous on-line survey. Eight further volunteered for semi-structured interviews. These comprised seven females and one male across a range of ages. Two were of Black African Caribbean origin, one of mixed heritage and four white British or Irish. It should be noted that each participant knew the author, professionally.
In order to manage this, there was clear guidance around the confidentiality of the interview. The recorded interviews were seen by the author and held by the university. They were not shared with the organisation. Holistic feedback and learning from the research as a whole were fed into supervision training at a later date.
Thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke (2014) was used to analyse both survey and semi-structured interview data. The first step was to become familiar with the data to develop initial codes. These were developed and refined and then grouped into identified themes.

Online Survey Findings
Please refer to Table 1 on page 18. For questions 1 to 7, participants were asked to rate their responses using the following rating scale: 1not at all, 2 -Sometimes, 3 -Occasionally, 4 -Usually, 5 -Consistently.
Qualitative open questions provided a clear opportunity to review and define themes (Braun and Clarke 2014), for example looking at specific changes for the supervisee: Q. 8 What have been the key differences for you, in relation to face to face and 'virtual' supervision?
The majority of participants responded positively to this question. Comments that emerged noted virtual supervision to be 'consistent', 'convenient' and 'covering more', and 'feeling comfortable'. Some participants valued these elements whilst also noting a sense of diminishment, for example 'easy to arrange but less personal' or 'supportive but and less warmth body language apparent'. For some, virtual supervision was functional and did happen regularly, but the critical element of reflection was lost.
For six of the participants, there was a more negative experience, for example a 'loss of body language' and gauging mood of either supervisor or PUTTING THE 'VIRTUAL' INTO SUPERVISION DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND BEYOND supervisee with little to compensate; 'not as reflective' and 'rather exhausting', especially in relation to screen use and issues around technology. Q. 9 How does online supervision either help you or hinder you in feeling supported, and in promoting your wellbeing and resilience?
Seventeen participants reported positive experiences. For example, support was regarded as very important to social workers who noted 'positive interaction' and 'feeling listened to'. Another important factor identified was having the opportunity to make joint decisions and gain reassurance around practice decisions. 'Hindering' factors included 'feeling rushed' and 'losing the personal touch'. Wellbeing also came up again as an issue with reports of virtual supervision being potentially 'exhausting'.
Q. 10 In what ways does online supervision help or hinder you in making progress for your own Continuing Professional Development?
Sixteen participants reported some experiences regarding CPD. These included facilitating 'training discussions' and 'booking into training'. Participants noted the way that virtual supervision protected time and was also time efficient allowing for other activities.
When considering what this means for practice, these factors highlight the importance of attuned supervision, where the supervisor can respond to the needs and emotions of the supervisee. This is what Wonnacott (2012) refers to as responsive and authoritative supervision and is an important element of stress management and space for reflection. The skills of using social work supervision begins in social work placement and for many students, Covid, and virtual learning, had a profound impact on social work learning, reflection and preparation (McFadden et al. 2020). Ashcroft et al. 2022 highlight how social workers have undergone transformative change. They discussed the element of personal health and safety as an important factor for social workers. In the  (Goossen 2011, Braithwaite 2012, LSCB 2017. Supervision is an essential tool, central to safe practice. Moving forward, the continued development of reflective supervision should be valued and prioritised, as part of attending to the needs of all stakeholders (Morrison 2005).

Results from Semi-Structured Interview Questions
Morrison's 4x4x4 model provided a useful framework for exploring the responses from the research participants. The analysis in this study focuses primarily upon the first level of these which comprises the functions of (1) Management, (2) Support, (3) Mediation, and (4)

Support Function (Morrison 2005)
In your experience of 'virtual' supervision, what aspects have you found to be supportive of you professionally and personally? All eight interview participants identified positive elements of virtual supervision such as: supervision supported confidence and provided a focus on wellbeing; the value of 'containment' being provided by their supervisor; and how the efficient use of time brought added space for reflection.
There is also time to reflect, and I always use this to cover a case in more detail (P.2).
'You feel that you've got that space. It's more concise -I don't know why but you can feel it' (P.6).
I've enjoyed the transition from Working from Home, and it has allowed me to feel supported. You can slot it in. It doesn't always last as long -it can be more concise. It's more structured (P.8).
'I would not have expected professional relationships to develop as well via virtual supervision' (P.7).
'A supportive aspect of virtual supervision has been containment -it is more important to me. This was particularly valuable as: there is no office-based containment at the moment' due to staff mainly working from home (P.5).
In your experience of 'virtual' supervision, what aspects have you found to be challenging for you professionally and personally?

PUTTING THE 'VIRTUAL' INTO SUPERVISION DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND BEYOND
Understandably here the feedback was more 'negative'. In particular, managing technical issues was an issue for most of the participants including issues with the equipment or staff ability to use the technical equipment. This also included technical distractions such as emails popping up.
'When you're in the flow and you've lost your reflective pace. You're sharing what's on your mind and especially when it's bringing up emotions then the internet freezes' (P.8).
'Maybe minor technical glitches e.g. with camera. I am used to the relationship with my manager, and it's been adaptable and easy going (P.2).
'Everyone seems to have less breaks so sometimes you go from one meeting to the next, but you can make it happen and get that management oversight' (P.7).
Though some elements could be both distracting and helpful at the same time: I notice the self in action. It's odd to see your own face. It brings a real sense of how you presenta 'live assessment' of how you're presenting yourself. It can keep you in the moment also keep you conscious and you can get drawn in. Maybe helpful in putting the relationship at the heart of practice, how can we carry through (P.1).
And some participants had started to develop strategies as they gained confidence and experience in virtual supervision.
'I've needed for a 5-minute break sometimes -and asked for it' (P.5)

Mediation Function (Morrison 2005)
Additionally, there was a sense of loss in relation to freely connecting with the supervisor or having 'supervision moments' to help manage between full supervision sessions. Unexpected issues arose too such as participants worrying about who else could see and hear them in their supervision discussionsparticipants noted that they could only control their own environment and did not know who was in the background in relation to their supervisor. 'Anyone could hear what is being said, you don't know who is in the background' (P.6).
Another factor identified was back-to-back meetings being booked, resulting in no recovery time following supervision. This could serve as an inhibitor to opening up in supervision sessions.
One participant noted the ability to manage moments of stress or feeling overwhelmed by using the technology to 'take a moment' if needed by seeking agreement for this and turning off their camera.
Comments included:

CONNELL
'The manager is always the bridge and filter, there is a loss of organic input e.g., it's harder to catch up if you miss an important meeting (P.4).
'You can type in a quick email or call in a senior manager to ask a question (P.3).
Support is strong and so is the emotional support. This might be a caveat -to do with the pandemic (P.5).
In considering the functions of supervision as outlined by Kadushin (1992) (being administration, support, education), or Morrison (2005) (being management, continuing development, support and mediation), which of these functions do you feel have been enhanced by virtue of being offered online?
All eight of the participants had some positive experience of virtual supervision enhancing these functions, in particular those of support, mediation and development. One participant noted that the support function had been enhanced and they felt more comfortable: 'It's easier to open upit removes the pressure', but support with systems (e.g. showing them how to do something on the computer) was harder. An enhanced administrative function within virtual supervision included facilitation of case discussions and providing direction, and authorisation.

Development Function (Morrison 2005)
Six participants noted however that some supervisory functions were diminished or lost, in particular education and reflection. However, some had found improvement in arranging training, for example: 'My supervisor and I can look at training together during supervision, which is efficient' (P.4).
Have there been any unexpected outcomes for you in relation to having 'virtual' supervision?
Some participants noted how reflective and connecting virtual supervision could still be, at least some of the time. Another theme was the consistency and efficiency of virtual supervision. One participant had found virtual supervision reflective but had noted the way silence can impact an individual. For them, silence could be both positive and negative and the 'meaning' had been more difficult to ascertain when not in the same room. This brought extra meaning when thinking of the impact upon service users: Has virtual supervision enabled you to better understand the use of 'self' within the social work role? If so, how?
Most participants had positive responses commenting on the impact of supervision in relation to practice, whether this was modelling practice, helping them to provide a good standard of reflective practice, and 'bringing humanity' to practice. Two of the participants noted the positive impact of virtual supervision on self-reflection but found it quite task-based and sometimes distracting in relation to seeing themselves in the corner of the screen. One participant had a negative experience in the sense that there was not really time to delve into critical reflection, which they felt was an important factor in thinking about the self within social work.
'You can't see body language. I don't want to say something that can be taken in the wrong way' (P.6).
'Seeing supervisors and families at home is a great leveller' and there is less of an imbalance. 'It's been a space that is focused on my wellbeing, not just cases' (P.5).
And for some, there has been a sense of increased confidence to challenge, for example 'There is something about Virtual supervision that makes you 'less on the spot'. It's easier to share some things. There is more space to challenge and to be challenged. There's that barrier there' (P.7).

Management Function (Morrison 2005)
Has your experience of 'virtual' supervision enhanced your effectiveness in providing support to families? If so, how?
The majority of participants reported an enhancement of effectiveness including an increased awareness of how they appear to families through supervision modelling practice, or simply being able to see themselves in the corner of the screen. Another theme was the positive impact of the efficient use of time that came from virtual supervision with for more time available for dedicated work with families.
'Being really aware of what we look like when talking to families, facial expression and body language. If we're having difficulties or broaching a subjectseeing how the topic might make us present (ourselves). It's important to be aware of this (P.8).
'I've felt a shift from being very boundaried to bringing in some humanity to practice. Being willing to show more self' (P.5).

Discussion
Overall, the findings present a generally positive response to the experience of online supervision. There was a strong sense of being invested in supervision, valuing the time and learning, and wishing to use the space for reflection and analysis (Cherniss andGoleman 2001, Dazell andSawyer 2009). Virtual supervision was noted to allow for efficient use of time with emergencies 344 CONNELL being less likely to take the supervisor away from supervision. Participants acknowledged and expressed respect for the time pressures on their supervisors and an understanding that supervision is a multi-layered process. Participants reported that the basic supervision needs regarding managing casework were in general met and support was available. Respondents expressed that there was 'enough' of the management element to meet core supervisory needs and bring space for developing hypotheses and to remain open minded (Munro 2008). They also noted an opportunity to discuss and prepare for virtual home visits to families, which brought its own challenges (Cook and Zschomler 2020). They reportedly valued confidence, clarity, and efficiency as qualities from their supervisor. Some participants reported that they felt safer to share whilst they were in their home environment and were able to have more robust conversations.
Feedback demonstrated that the functions of supervision often overlapped, and some participants found space for reflection when discussing cases. This varied, but there appeared to be an element of supervisors using virtual supervision to consider individual needs (Burnham 2005) and of bringing together opportunities for reflective learning (Davys and Beddoe 2010).
Participants noted that virtual supervision had the potential to raise their levels of self-awareness. One factor here was that they could see themselves in the corner of the screen throughout the whole supervision.
One participant commented that they used this mechanism to think about how they might come across to families when having 'difficult conversations'. The participants reported a keenness to have opportunities to reflect. This was seen as entwined with preparing for good practice. Training around 'preparing for supervision' may strengthen the use of virtual supervision in this way.
In relation to support, participants reported that they missed the one-toone, 'in person' contact with their supervisor. Some noted a real sense of loss around this. Overall, participants reported feeling supported in relation to attending to the emotional impact of the work (Wonnacott 2014). This emotional support was an important part for them during a time when there was a loss of contact with others. There was also an experience of them being in this (Covid-19) situation together.
Some responses highlighted the power of the working relationship within the supervisory context. A reflective space for supervisors to have the opportunity to consider how supervision can be used could be helpful here.
In relation to mediation, respondents expressed a sense of holding on to a variety of issues until the 'big event' of the structured virtual supervision meeting. Matters that involved multiagency partners or organisational issues tended to be 'saved'. This perhaps reflects a lot of pressure being placed on virtual supervision given the importance of good supervision in relation to job satisfaction and how staff perceive the way they are supported by their organisation (Chiller and Crisp 2012).
It was noted that the function of mediation can sometimes be underestimated. Ensuring those conversations when preparing for carer panel or seeking authorisation is important, and therefore important to keep on the supervision agenda.
Some of the positives noted for virtual supervision were 'indirect', for example the focussed and succinct nature of virtual supervision meant that it didn't run over time as sometimes occurs with face-to-face supervision. Some participants had made constructive use of this time to attend to their continuing professional development by applying for training or accessing learning resources during that 'saved' time.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, Continuing Professional Development training opportunities changed. Some training was on hold and other pertinent training was made available virtually. This training was often of a shorter length of time, and this made training more accessible. Keeping some virtual training and encouraging social workers to access this might help to maintain the CPD element of supervision.
Part of professional development needs noted was preparing for practice and finding creative ways of working with families and multi-agency partners.
For some, the experience of virtual supervision did not seem so unusual: 'Having more recently qualified -I've had more virtual supervisions than face to face' (P.2). For others it brought about elements of positive change: 'We moved around more. Not as formal, less obligation. Things moved and they needed to' (P.5).
And not all the respondents missed face to face supervision. There were also some 'pleasant surprises' noted in relation to facilitating relationships with colleagues and multi-agency partners.
Participants also shared the importance of 'containment' (Ruch 2005) as part of reflection and support. This helped them to access supervision as a space to think and develop and review multiple hypotheses.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, technical issues such as internet drop-out, and unexpected computer updates had impacted on some virtual supervisions (Banks et al. 2020). This could be very frustrating for all.
For some participants, it had become apparent that the supervision content might have been inadvertently being shared more widely rather than solely with the supervisor.
The responses from participants' highlight that the need for confidential space remains important and can be a cause of anxiety in supervision. These worries could be allayed by ensuring that both parties are alone and considering who is nearby. Actions as simple as wearing headphones that bring a layer of confidentiality could also assist. Overall, participants brought a constructive approach to managing the challenges that arose.
This research has identified both positive and negative experiences of virtual supervision. In accordance with Morrison's (2005) model of optimal supervision, the findings suggest that key elements of the supervision functions are well integrated, particularly the management function and the support function, whereas the mediation and CPD aspects were more variable. The 346 CONNELL interviews also highlighted that there was a varied level of understanding of supervision models suggesting perhaps that additional training on these may be needed to assist supervisors and supervisees gain the most from supervision whether virtual or face to face. Moving forward, the research outcomes have been a useful reminder for ensuring that confidential space and being emotionally present in supervision. This has been well received by line manager in supervision workshops and training.

Study Limitations
This study was limited to a single local authority and to only Children and Families teams within that local authority. The participants were recruited on the basis of self-selection which could potentially have led to unintended bias, and the sample size was limited. Whilst the findings may not have generalisability, they do however provide some interesting insights for further exploration in other settings (McWilliam 2004). This research has also provided an opportunity to consider what training could support supervisors in providing more rounded virtual supervision and for supervisees to more efficiently access all elements of the supervision functions. Given that the future remains uncertain, it appears that there is a need for a continued combination of virtual and face to face supervision. Future research could be extended to cover a broader range of work social work settings including adults' services, statutory, 'independent and voluntary services', include larger sample sizes and be more geographically dispersed.