Importance Mentorship is considered a key element for career satisfaction and retention in academic surgery. Stakeholders of an effective mentorship program should include the mentor, the mentee, the department, and the institution. Objective The objective of this study was to characterize the status of mentorship programs in departments of surgery in the United States, including the roles of all 4 key stakeholders, because to our knowledge, this has never been done. Design, Setting, and Participants A survey was sent to 155 chairs of departments of surgery in the United States in July 2014 regarding the presence and structure of the mentorship program in their department. The analysis of the data was performed in November 2014 and December 2014. Main Outcomes and Measures Presence and structure of a mentorship program and involvement of the 4 key stakeholders. Results Seventy-six of 155 chairs responded to the survey, resulting in a 49% response rate. Forty-one of 76 of department chairs (54%) self-reported having an established mentorship program. Twenty-five of 76 departments (33%) described no formal or informal pairing of mentors with mentees. In 62 (82%) and 59 (78%) departments, no formal training existed for mentors or mentees, respectively. In 42 departments (55%), there was no formal requirement for the frequency of scheduled meetings between the mentor and mentee. In most departments, mentors and mentees were not required to fill out evaluation forms, but when they did, 28 of 31 were reviewed by the chair (90%). In 70 departments (92%), no exit strategy existed for failed mentor-mentee relationships. In more than two-thirds of departments, faculty mentoring efforts were not recognized formally by either the department or the institution, and only 2 departments (3%) received economic support for the mentoring program from the institution. Conclusions and Relevance These data show that only half of departments of surgery in the United States have established mentorship programs, and most are informal, unstructured, and do not involve all of the key stakeholders. Given the importance of mentorship to career satisfaction and retention, development of formal mentorship programs should be considered for all academic departments of surgery.

/pdf/characterization-of-mentorship-programs-in-departments-of-4zxuxrj8qm.pdf

Characterization of Mentorship Programs in Departments of Surgery in the United States.

Introduction: Mentoring relationships are pivotal to the outcome of the mentoring process This thematic review seeks to study the key aspects of mentoring relationships between senior physicians and junior doctors and/or medical students to inform efforts to improve mentoring programsMethods: Literature search was performed on publications across PubMed, ERIC, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, OVID and ScienceDirect databases between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2015 by three independent reviewers The BEME guide and STORIES statement were used to develop a narrative from the articles selectedResults: Thematic analysis of 49 articles reveals five semantic themes of initiation process, developmental process, evaluation process, sustaining mentoring relationship, and obstacles to effective mentoring The evolving and relational-dependent nature of mentoring pivots upon the compatibility of mentors and mentees and the quality of their interactions, which in turn depend on mentoring enviro

Mentoring relationships between senior physicians and junior doctors and/or medical students: A thematic review.

Introduction:To address a dearth of mentoring and to avoid the pitfalls of dyadic mentoring, the authors implemented and evaluated a novel collaborative group peer mentoring program in a large academic department of medicine.Methods:The mentoring program aimed to facilitate faculty in their career p

Group Peer Mentoring: An Answer to the Faculty Mentoring Problem? A Successful Program at a Large Academic Department of Medicine.

Objective The authors sought to describe characteristics of effective mentoring relationships in academic surgery based upon lived experiences of mid-career and senior female academic surgeons. Background Prior qualitative work describes characteristics of successful mentoring relationships. However, no model exists of effective mentorship that is specific to academic surgery. Methods The authors conducted in-depth interviews with mid-career and senior female US academic surgeons about the impact of mentoring on professional development during 2014 and 2015. Purposive selection aimed to maximize institutional, specialty, years in career, and racial diversity. Grounded theory method was used to generate a conceptual model of effective mentoring relationships. Data saturation occurred following 15 interviews. Results Interviewees described the need for multiple mentors over time with each mentor addressing a unique domain. Interviewees suggested that mentees should seek mentors who will serve as strategic advisors, who will be unselfish, and who engage with diverse mentees. Conclusions This study identified a need for multiple mentors across time and disciplines, and identified 3 key characteristics of effective mentoring relationships in academic surgery. Future work in this area should generate an operational definition of mentorship that supports quantitative evaluation of mentor and mentoring panel performance.

Characteristics of Effective Mentorship for Academic Surgeons: A Grounded Theory Model.

Mentoring is suffering from a shortage of trained mentors which compromise the efficacy of novice mentoring or mentoring between a senior clinician and a junior clinician. E-mentoring is proposed as a means of supplementing this dominant form of mentoring in medicine by providing accessible, timely and longitudinal support for mentees. However, with little is known about e-mentoring nor its role in a blended mentoring approach, a systematic scoping review is proposed to evaluate these gaps in understanding in order to better understand e-mentoring and assess the viability of employing e-mentoring practice to support novice mentoring. Using Arksey and O’Malley’s (Int J Soc Res Methodol 8(1):19–32, 2005) approach, 5 reviewers carried out independent literature reviews of e-mentoring as an adjuvant to novice mentoring in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Google Scholar, Scopus, GreyLit, OpenGrey, and Web of Science databases. Braun and Clarke’s (Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101, 2006) thematic analysis approach was used to thematically analyse accounts of e-mentoring across different settings. 6557 abstracts were identified, 109 full text articles were reviewed, and 18 articles were included and thematically analysed. The themes identified include definitions, role, stages, processes, platforms, evaluation, and relationships in e-mentoring. The themes identified provide a clinically relevant definition of e-mentoring, and in highlighting the similarities in the phases of novice and e-mentoring reaffirms the validity of a blended approach as a means of addressing shortfalls in mentoring in medicine.

Enhancing mentoring experiences through e-mentoring: a systematic scoping review of e-mentoring programs between 2000 and 2017

Introduction:The aims of this study were to (1) describe the quantity and quality of mentoring faculty in US academic health centers (AHCs), (2) measure associations between mentoring and 12 dimensions that reflect the culture of AHCs, and (3) assess whether mentoring predicts seriously contemplatin

Mentoring Faculty: A US National Survey of Its Adequacy and Linkage to Culture in Academic Health Centers.

A practical, reliable, and valid instrument is needed to measure the impact of the learning environment on medical students’ well-being and educational experience and to meet medical school accreditation requirements. From 2012 to 2015, medical students were surveyed at the end of their first, second, and third year of studies at four medical schools. The survey assessed students’ perceptions of the following nine dimensions of the school culture: vitality, self-efficacy, institutional support, relationships/inclusion, values alignment, ethical/moral distress, work-life integration, gender equity, and ethnic minority equity. The internal reliability of each of the nine dimensions was measured. Construct validity was evaluated by assessing relationships predicted by our conceptual model and prior research. Assessment was made of whether the measurements were sensitive to differences over time and across institutions. Six hundred and eighty-six students completed the survey (49 % women; 9 % underrepresented minorities), with a response rate of 89 % (range over the student cohorts 72–100 %). Internal consistency of each dimension was high (Cronbach’s α 0.71–0.86). The instrument was able to detect significant differences in the learning environment across institutions and over time. Construct validity was supported by demonstrating several relationships predicted by our conceptual model. The C-Change Medical Student Survey is a practical, reliable, and valid instrument for assessing the learning environment of medical students. Because it is sensitive to changes over time and differences across institution, results could potentially be used to facilitate and monitor improvements in the learning environment of medical students.

Assessing the Learning Environment for Medical Students: An Evaluation of a Novel Survey Instrument in Four Medical Schools.

Importance As medical faculty have central roles during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to study the pandemic’s association with the vitality and careers of medical school faculty. Objective To examine how the COVID-19 pandemic affected midcareer research faculty in academic medicine. Design, Setting, and Participants This qualitative study included medical school faculty who participated in the C-Change Mentoring and Leadership Institute. All US medical school faculty recipients of recent National Institutes of Health (NIH) RO1, RO1-equivalent, and K awards were invited to apply to the institute. The 99 applicants who met inclusion criteria were stratified by degree (MD or MD/PhD vs PhD), gender, and race/ethnicity. Enrollment was offered to applicants randomly selected for 40 spots, demographically balanced by sex, underrepresented in medicine minority (URMM) status, and degree. In April 2020, an inquiry was emailed to faculty enrolled in the institute requesting responses to questions about meaning in work, career choice, and values. A qualitative analysis of narrative data responses, using grounded theory, was undertaken to determine key themes. This study is part of a NIH-funded randomized trial to test the efficacy of a group peer mentoring course for midcareer faculty and study the course’s mechanisms of action. Main Outcomes and Measures Key themes in data. Results Of 40 enrolled participants, 39 responded to the inquiry, for a response rate of 97%. The analytic sample included 39 faculty members; 19 (47%) were women, 20 (53%) identified as URMM, and 20 (53%) had an MD or MD with PhD vs 19 (47%) with PhD degrees. Key themes in the data that emerged describing faculty lived experience of the pandemic included increased meaningfulness of work; professionalism and moral responsibility; enhanced relationships with colleagues; reassertion of career choice; disrupted research; impact on clinical work; attention to health disparities, social justice and advocacy; increased family responsibilities; psychological stress; and focus on leadership. Conclusions and Relevance During the pandemic, diverse PhD and physician investigators reported increased meaningfulness in work and professionalism and enhanced relationships, all intrinsic motivators associated with vitality. Working during the pandemic appears to have produced intrinsic rewards positively associated with vitality, in addition to adverse mental health effects. These findings have implications for combatting burnout and retaining investigators in the future.

/pdf/midcareer-medical-school-research-faculty-perspectives-on-27n2tkdc9w.pdf

Vasilia Vasiliou

Papers

Mentoring Faculty: A US National Survey of Its Adequacy and Linkage to Culture in Academic Health Centers.

Assessing the Learning Environment for Medical Students: An Evaluation of a Novel Survey Instrument in Four Medical Schools.

Midcareer Medical School Research Faculty Perspectives on Vitality and Professionalism During the COVID-19 Pandemic.