MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2785806727 · doi:10.4300/jgme-d-17-00728.1

Redirecting the Focus of Resident Mentorship

2018· letter· en· W2785806727 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Benjamin Persons, Michael J. Agatstein, Ju Hee Kim

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Graduate Medical Education · 2018
Typeletter
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueMentoring and Academic Development
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMentorshipFocus (optics)Medical educationMedicineData scienceComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesIntégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,316
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,080
Tête enseignante GPT0,386
Écart entre enseignants0,307 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Graduate Medical EducationMême sujetMentoring and Academic DevelopmentTravaux en français237 207