top of page

Supervision & Peer Review Definitions

NZAPH Supervision Definitions

NZAPH Supervision Definitions v1 — Committee Adopted June 2026

Following discussion and review by the NZAPH Committee, NZAPH has formally adopted the following supervision definitions.

These definitions provide clarity for members and distinguish between structured clinical supervision, group clinical supervision, and peer clinical review.

NZAPH no longer organises, coordinates, or provides clinical supervision for members. Members are responsible for arranging their own supervision directly with an appropriately experienced supervisor.

​

1. Clinical Supervision (Structured) — One-to-One

Definition

Clinical Supervision (Structured) — One-to-One is a formal, contracted, and accountable professional relationship between a designated supervisor and a practitioner, focused on the practitioner’s clinical practice with clients.

It is a private supervisory process designed to ensure:

  • client safety

  • ethical practice

  • clinical reasoning development

  • professional accountability

  • reflective practice

​

It IS

  • A formal supervision relationship with a designated supervisor

  • A structured, scheduled one-to-one process

  • Focused on actual client work and clinical decision-making

  • A space for ethical reflection and risk consideration

  • A professional accountability mechanism

  • Part of ongoing competence and safe practice requirements

​

It is NOT

  • Peer discussion or peer learning

  • Coaching or skills training

  • Therapy for the practitioner

  • Informal case consultation without accountability

  • A casual professional conversation

​

2. Clinical Supervision (Structured) — Group

Definition

Clinical Supervision (Structured) — Group is a formal supervision process involving multiple practitioners and one or more designated supervisors, where clinical work is reviewed collectively within a structured and facilitated environment.

The focus remains on:

  • clinical accountability

  • ethical reflection

  • risk awareness

  • professional development

  • case formulation and reasoning

Importantly, it is still supervision, not peer learning, because it is facilitated within a supervisory framework with defined authority and responsibility.

​

It IS

  • A structured supervision format with a designated supervisor(s)

  • A facilitated group process focused on clinical work

  • A space for case review, reflection, and clinical reasoning

  • A forum for ethical and risk discussion

  • Part of formal supervision requirements, where recognised by a professional body

  • Accountable professional oversight in a group format

​

It is NOT

  • Informal peer discussion

  • General professional networking or sharing

  • Training workshops

  • Non-directed reflective group conversation without supervisory framing

  • A substitute for individual supervision requirements unless explicitly permitted by a governing body

​

3. Peer Clinical Review — PCR

NZAPH usage — labelled internally as “clinical supervision”

​

Definition

Peer Clinical Review, or PCR, is a structured peer-to-peer reflective practice process where practitioners of equivalent standing discuss clinical work for the purpose of shared learning, reflection, and professional development.

It does not involve formal supervisory authority, accountability, or oversight, and therefore is not clinical supervision, despite sometimes being informally labelled as such in organisational settings.

PCR aligns more closely with peer consultation and reflective practice groups in supervision literature.

​

It IS

  • A peer-based reflective learning process

  • A structured discussion between colleagues of similar standing

  • A space for shared case reflection and insight generation

  • A professional development activity

  • A collaborative learning environment

  • Useful for clinical insight, perspective-sharing, and support

​​

It is NOT

  • Clinical supervision, even if sometimes labelled that way

  • A formal accountability structure

  • A supervisory relationship

  • A risk governance mechanism

  • A substitute for required supervision hours, unless explicitly permitted by regulation

  • A performance assessment process

​

Key Structural Clarification

Important governance distinction

Across all established supervision literature:

  • Clinical Supervision = accountability + oversight + governance relationship

  • Peer Clinical Review = collaborative learning + reflection without authority

  • Group supervision = supervision only when formally structured and led within a supervisory authority framework

​

Member Responsibility

NZAPH members are responsible for arranging their own clinical supervision directly with an appropriately experienced supervisor.

NZAPH does not appoint, manage, monitor, or guarantee individual supervision relationships.

Members remain professionally responsible for ensuring that their supervision arrangements are appropriate for their membership category, level of experience, scope of practice, and client work.

These definitions take effect from 1 July 2026.

 

bottom of page