Redirecting the Focus of Resident Mentorship
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The idea of milestones for resident mentorship was introduced by Khan and colleagues1 in a recent article in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education. We take for granted the authors' assertion that mentorship is an essential component that helps people navigate the challenges inherent in medical training. Part of the appeal of the graduate medical education process is the close relationship between resident and attending physician: a type of apprenticeship that once existed across many professions, which has increasingly been lost in the transition to modernity. At its best, this relationship extends beyond the formal bounds of patient care to encouraging and supporting a resident's career goals and addressing his or her individual concerns. The first year of residency requires the physician in training to work with a variety of attending physicians. Such an arrangement allows the resident to select the faculty member who seems to be a good fit for guidance and support going forward.We appreciate the efforts of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Council of Review Committee Residents in compiling a number of specified mentor competencies.1 While these are broad enough to be applicable to different residency programs, we feel that interpersonal compatibility between mentor and mentee should take precedence. The effectiveness of mentorship appears to increase when mentor and mentee are matched according to personality type.2 This is even more important when, as Khan et al suggested,1 mentors are selected among residents who are more advanced in their training but may lack the authority attached to the title of attending physician. A “speed-dating” strategy to pair junior residents with senior residents was described by Caine et al.3 Residents ranked 3 preferred resident mentors after meeting individually with each of the mentoring candidates one-on-one for 90 seconds. This increased resident satisfaction to 85%, compared with 30% when mentors were assigned by the program. A similar process has been endorsed by the otolaryngology program at the University of Alberta,4 where residents are directed to select from a pool of prospective faculty mentors based on deidentified data featuring their character traits and expertise. The program found statistically significant decreases in depersonalization and emotional exhaustion when residents had a role in selecting mentors based on compatible traits.4The literature cited here is only a small sample from the multitude of sources addressing mentorship as a means to combat resident burnout. The individualization of the mentoring process appears to be beneficial. Peer and resident-faculty mentorship, once left to the residents to pursue, are increasingly recognized by programs for their ability to offset the challenges faced during residency.We believe the best way to establish these relationships is to facilitate encounters between like-minded individuals. Defining mentoring milestones, while important, should not be used to rigidly demarcate the relationship between mentor and mentee. In the short amount of time accorded by the rigors of training, personal compatibility should be the foremost consideration in this relationship.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».