MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908042513 · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000005134

Mentorship: A Pathway to Succeed in Plastic Surgery

2018· article· en· W2908042513 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Smita R. Ramanadham, Rod J. Rohrich

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiversity and Career in Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentorshipMedicinePlastic surgeryGeneral surgerySurgeryMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. —Isaac Newton As young faculty in the early years of my career at an academic institution, I find myself reflecting on my career choices and what the future holds. What are my short-term and long-term goals and plans? Do they fit with what I want to do in my private and professional life? Am I currently fulfilled in my career? These are questions that we must all answer after honest self-reflection. Although, ideally, the answers should be yes, this is often not the case. This results in many becoming discouraged and unhappy; we leave our current jobs to look for better opportunities; we leave academics altogether. Attrition rates in academia subsequently remain high, and we must address this. We must first answer for ourselves why we have chosen our profession and ensure that our goals align with the job we have chosen. Is it for the prestige, the money, or the job stability, or is it to give back, teach the next generation of surgeons, and provide the best care for our patients? For the senior author, the primary goals have been to be a good doctor and give back, teach the next generation of plastic surgery leaders, continue to improve and impact medicine, and family. That is my goal as well. The answer, however, is different for us all, but the template is similar. Be a good doctor first, give back, be and do your best, and do not be afraid to challenge yourself. Do we need help along this path? Yes! That is the vital role of life mentors and plastic surgery mentors. Often, they are not the same. I would argue that with appropriate mentorship for junior faculty, we can address the problems of job dissatisfaction and attrition. We are very good at providing mentorship to our students and residents, but what happens after? Are we doing a good job at mentoring our young junior faculty or have we failed? Do we prepare plastic surgeons for the business and academic aspect of plastic surgery today? The answer is—it depends! It depends on your mentor, your training, and your mindset to learn these fundamental aspects that are key to success in plastic surgery. We often forget that, as physicians, we have an obligation to give back and teach the next generation so they can be better than we were. We can and must do better! IMPORTANCE OF MENTORS As stated by Rohrich, we must train at the “feet of masters.”1 Mentorship is key to professional development. Mentors provide advice, guidance, and support, fostering qualities that enable a successful career and improve retention.2 Mentorship increases productivity, career advancement, research, and grant funding, and decreases burnout compared with nonmentored peers.3,4 Mentees, in addition, report higher job satisfaction.3 Furthermore, mentors benefit also as they pass on their talents and skills to the next generation.3 Mentorship is important throughout our training and contributes to the success of our profession.4 Eighty percent of recent medical school graduates reported that their mentors influenced their decision to pursue plastic surgery; 40 percent wanted a practice similar to their mentor’s.4 They were also more likely to become academic surgeons according to a survey by DeLong et al.5 Mentorship, however, becomes less formal once training is complete, as 19 to 84 percent of clinical faculty reported working with a mentor.6 This is concerning given the data showing its importance and the high attrition rates seen in academic medicine among faculty. HIGH ATTRITION RATES A survey of academic physicians shows that 14 percent considered leaving within 1 year, whereas 21 percent considered leaving academics altogether because of dissatisfaction.7 In plastic surgery, specifically, only 27 percent of graduates enter academic practice, and an astonishing 40 percent depart within 5 years.8 In a survey performed in 2012, burnout, lack of mentorship, and difficulty with work-life balance were the most important predictors of attrition.8 Inadequate mentorship was noted in 43 percent of respondents in another survey, with the percentage of faculty considering leaving higher in this group.9 Rates of attrition are, unfortunately, higher in female and ethnic minority groups.8,10 A survey of American College of Surgeons members noted that 10 to 20 percent of surgeons consider leaving academia, with women assistant professors contemplating this more commonly.11 WOMEN IN ACADEMIA Women now constitute 50 percent of matriculating medical students, 37 percent of plastic surgery trainees, and 14 percent of board-certified plastic surgeons.12 In fact, plastic surgery maintains the highest percentage of women academicians.13 Although they are more likely to take academic positions, they, on average, tend to be younger and remain at the assistant professor level compared with their male counterparts.14 Women are less likely to be promoted or hold tenure positions, more likely to abandon academics altogether, and reported lower professional satisfaction.10,12 This has been attributed to work culture, barriers to research, lack of engagement, work-life balance, low salary, and poor mentorship and leadership.7,10,15,16 Women remain underrepresented in leadership positions, with 7 percent of plastic surgery chiefs and chairs being female.10,15 There is, consequently, a paucity of female mentors in leadership positions. In a survey performed by Janis and Barker, the majority of mentors were men older than 50 years.17 Same-gender mentors are vital, as women are less likely to seek advice from men regarding gender-related issues, and are less likely to pursue surgery because of a lack of female co-workers and role models.15 Female role models have, in addition, been shown to be the most influential factor for female students interested in surgery.13 RETENTION RATES AND MENTORSHIP An integral part of a successful teaching hospital is the retention of talented faculty. Replacing these surgeons is considerably more costly.10,18 Therefore, we need to stress mentorship especially among young women. A survey conducted at the University of Michigan Medical School reported that faculty with mentors were significantly more satisfied with their job.19 There are data that mentorship programs can improve retention, as seen at the University of California San Diego, whose faculty were more likely to participate in other leadership and professional activities.18 Other institutions, such as the University of Toronto, developed formal career development programs and noted advancement of faculty, whereas the University of Virginia noted increased morale. Formal mentorship correlated with increased productivity and faculty retention.10 It is a vital tool that should be supported by institutions to help recruit and retain talented plastic surgeons.18 Given the importance of mentorship for junior faculty, we must be proactive and seek it out at our own institutions, through professional societies or various networking events. For women specifically, we must be our own advocates, learn to ask for what we want, have confidence in ourselves, and overcome the “confidence gap” that, unfortunately, exists.15,20 In doing so, we can generate excellence in ourselves and in our female colleagues, and together overcome the “glass ceiling effect” that exists.15 The future of our profession relies on this. Although there are many factors involved in job satisfaction, the data are clear, mentorship is vital to faculty success and retention, and we must provide this to our young junior faculty. In addition, we must assess our personal goals and priorities and internally define what success is for us. Only then can we achieve personal and professional satisfaction.21 As for me, I have been so privileged to have trained in an institution where I was able to create mentor-mentee relationships with true masters in plastic surgery. They not only have been my strongest advocates but have taken a vested interest in my personal and professional growth. Going forward, we can no longer have mentorship occur in happenstance, especially with the expanding ethnic diversity and the increasing number of women in our field. We have not done a good job historically in preparing these groups for the rapidly changing environment of medicine. In addition, we need to have specific Residency Review Committee mandates and curriculum to provide a template for ongoing mentorship and learning. This needs to be stressed more at the academic level by making it an achievement and standard for promotion or advancement in both hospital and academic institutions. The delicate balance of mentoring someone is not creating them in your own image, but giving them the opportunity to create themselves. ―Steven Spielberg

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicDiversity and Career in MedicineFrench-language works237,207