Results of a Formal Mentorship Program for Internal Medicine Residents: Can We Facilitate Genuine Mentorship?

Abstract

Background Mentorship programs are perceived as valuable, yet little is known about the effect of program design on mentoring effectiveness. Intervention We developed a program focused on mentoring relationship quality and evaluated how subsequent relationships compared to preexisting informal pairings. Methods Faculty members were invited by e-mail to participate in a new mentoring program. Participants were asked to complete a biography, subsequently provided to second- and third-year internal medicine residents. Residents were instructed to contact available mentors, and ultimately designate a formal mentor. All faculty and residents were provided a half-day workshop training, written guidelines, and e-mails. Reminders were e-mailed and announced in conferences approximately monthly. Residents were surveyed at the end of the academic year. Results Thirty-seven faculty members completed the biography, and 70% (26 of 37) of residents responded to the survey. Of the resident respondents, 77% (20 of 26) chose a formal mentor. Of the remainder, most had a previous informal mentor. Overall, 96% (25 of 26) of the residents had identified a mentor of some kind compared to 50% (13 of 26) before the intervention (P < .001), and 70% (14 of 20) who chose formal mentors identified them as actual mentors. Similar numbers of residents described their mentors as invested in the mentorship, and there was no statistical difference in the number of times mentors and mentees met. Conclusions Facilitated selection of formal mentors produced relationships similar to preexisting informal ones. This model may increase the prevalence of mentorship without decreasing quality.

A Sustainable and Effective Mentorship Model for Graduate Medical Education Programs

“…The program's framework included voluntary faculty participation, active mentee choice in the pairing, mentee role understanding, facilitated mentorship meetings, and deliberate relationship reviews. 13,15,16 Mentorship programs for individual training programs have shared similar foundations, including adequate training of mentors, protected mentorship time, and structured expectations to encourage accountability. Common limitations of these individual training models include absence of comparison groups, insufficient survey metrics, and lack of measures of long-term sustainability.…”

National survey of mentorship in Canadian general surgery residency programs: Where are we and what do we need?

“…The debate between organic versus assigned mentors is long standing and research exists highlighting the benefits of both. 40 – 43 Our results demonstrated that there was not a significant difference in resident satisfaction or mentorship effectiveness based on program type or if a mentor was assigned versus self-selected. In addition, residents favored having a mentorship program.…”

“… 23 Previous research has shown the prevalence of mentorship rises to 77 – 90% when mentorship programs are in place. 17 , 40 In the interviews, program directors appeared reluctant to accept mentorship programs, as they believed it negates the ability to form organic mentorship. The debate between organic versus assigned mentors is long standing and research exists highlighting the benefits of both.…”

A Mentor, Advisor, and Coach (MAC) Program to Enhance the Resident and Mentor Experience

“…2,11,12 Mentors should be adequately trained to fulfill the agreed roles. [13][14][15][16] With this framework, both mentee and mentor can significantly benefit from the relationship. 3,5 Individualization and flexibility of the MAC faculty-mentee relationship enhanced participants' experiences and improved participation.…”