Faculty Perceptions on the Roles of Mentoring, Advising, and Coaching in an Anesthesiology Residency Program: Mixed Methods Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Mentoring, advising, and coaching are essential components of resident education and professional development. Despite their importance, there is limited literature exploring how anesthesiology faculty perceive these practices and their role in supporting residents. Objective: This study aims to investigate anesthesiology faculty perspectives on the significance, implantation strategies, and challenges associated with mentorship, advising, and coaching in resident education. Methods: A comprehensive survey was administrated to 93 anesthesiology faculty members at Washington University School of Medicine. The survey incorporated quantitative Likert-scale questions and qualitative short-answer responses to assess faculty perceptions of the value, preferred formats, essential skills, and capacity for fulfilling multiple roles in these support practices. Additional areas of focus included the impact of staffing shortages, training requirements, and the potential of these practices to enhance faculty recruitment and retention. Results: The response rate was 44% (n=41). Mentoring was identified as the most important aspect, with 88% (n=36) of faculty respondents indicating its significance, followed by coaching, which was highlighted by 78% (n=32) of respondents. The majority felt 1 faculty member can effectively hold multiple roles for a given trainee. The respondents desired additional training for roles and found roles to be rewarding. All roles were seen as facilitating recruitment and retention. Barriers included faculty burnout; confusion between roles; time constraints; and desire for specialized training, especially in coaching skills. Conclusions: Implementing structured mentoring, advising, and coaching can profoundly impact resident education but requires role clarity, protected time, culture change, leadership buy-in, and faculty development. Targeted training and operational investments could enable programs to actualize immense benefits from high-quality resident support modalities. Respondents emphasized that resident needs evolve over time, necessitating flexibility in appropriate faculty guidance. While coaching demands unique skills, advising hinges on expertise and mentoring depends on relationship-building. Systematic frameworks of coaching, mentoring, and advising programs could unlock immense potential. However, realizing this vision demands surmounting barriers such as burnout, productivity pressures, confusion about logistics, and culture change. Ultimately, prioritizing resident support through high-quality personalized guidance can recenter graduate medical education.
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 | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 ».