Weekly Article: Who was your mentor?

by Paul Mullan
Children's National

As we begin our odyssey into a new academic year with more incoming PEM fellows than ever and many of us junior faculty still wet behind the ears, this month's Academic Medicine is appropriate timed with a systematic review on mentoring programs for academic physicians who have completed their training programs.

Aims: Describe mentoring models for physicians in practice and relative benefits of each model.

Methods: Extensive literature search, yielding 16 full-text articles describing 18 programs. Most outcomes were survey or focus group-based

Results: There are 7 models of mentorship reported, from most common to least common (I tried to also put in examples of each one at CNMC if possible; my apologies if I incorrectly classified/missed anyone's group or setup).

1. Dyad: traditional paired senior mentor + junior mentee; 1/2 of the articles described this type. (CNMC example: many…)
a. Objectives (any of: career development, intra-department communication, gender equity, leadership, career advancement, networking, feedback, sense of community, skills development, support, faculty retention)
b. Setup: some are mentee chooses mentor vs mentor assigned; some with contract and/or mission statement; single vs multiple mentors; hour long meetings vs half-day vs full day vs retreats; frequency of meetings from weekly to semi-annual; format included professional +/- social meetings; funded (protected time for mentee and/or mentor; stipend for mentor) by department vs un-funded.
c. Outcomes (grouped from all studies): academic progress and research deemed most important topics, 80% of mentees felt improved productivity, 75% of mentors felt effort was worthwhile, psychosocial rated higher than career functions, improved faculty retention (85% with mentors, 62% without mentors), mentees rated self higher in profesional development/research/education/administration, mentees believed it helped promotion & grant writing, mentors believed it helped increase self-confidence.

2. Peer: junior mentee/mentor + junior mentee mentor
(CNMC example: gPEM group)
a. Objectives: foster collaboration, coaching (weekly vs monthly vs every-other-month)
b. Outcomes: perceived sense of community and relationships, knowledge/psychological/emotional gains; pro's include no top-down creation of program, fewer resources required to start program.

3. Distance: distant mentor + local mentee
(CNMC example: Stephen Teach + some person not in DC)
a. Objectives: develop liaison with national organizations
b. Outcomes: none reported

4. Facilitated peer: (research or middle faculty mentor) + (junior mentees peer group as in #2) ; (CNMC example: Rob Freishtat + research work group)
a. Objectives: skill building, relationships, education
b. Outcomes: 30% improvement in academic satisfaction, skill achievement; 89% attendance rate; pro includes ability to "stretch" one resource (mentor) among many mentees.

5. Functional dyad:
a. Objectives: provide guidance for a defined project for a defined period
(CNMC example: upcoming Six Sigma project this Fall where academic faculty are paired with a Six Sigma "Black Belt" or "Green Belt" for a QI project)
b. Outcomes: agreement that relationship was respectful, beneficial, likely to advance career

6. Group: jr mentee + jr mentee + (...) + higher-level mentor(s) (CNMC example: fellow dinners at faculty houses)
a. Objectives: increase connectivity of trainees to sub-specialty, networking
b. Outcomes: 95% of mentors report meaningful connection to mentees, 74% of mentors report a positive experience

7. Speed: jr mentee + group of sr faculty; think speed dating... (CNMC example:____? ; perhaps the IMHS meeting for INSPIRE network attendees like Pavan)
a. Objectives: group answer specific questions to mentees' academic activities, identify resources to support activities, expand academic network, initiate ongoing mentorship meetings if opportunity arises
b. Outcomes: no change in satisfaction with mentoring; mentees did feel time was well spent (mean rating 6.3 out of 7)

To the brave few who are still reading, I want to include an excerpt of a speech that I have photocopied and taped into my Ludwig/Fleischer textbook from a speech given by Stephen Ludwig on the occasion of his acceptance of the Miller-Sarkin Award in 2006, that gets at the subject line of my email “Who was Mentor?”:

“…today I would like to express my personal views on a more intense role – that of mentor. The word is used very loosely throughout the halls of academia… often used imprecisely… I must return to the original derivation of the term – and for that we must look to Homer – the “rapper” of ancient Greece… as Odysseus was about to sail away [on his odyssey], he contemplated who would care for, teach, and advise his son [Telemachus]? He chose [his friend] Mentor for this most important position… a professional parent substitute who … take care in providing guidance, knowledge, opportunity, a listening ear, honesty, and an unconditional acceptance of an individual with whom they have a professional relationship. A true Mentor treats a mentee’s career and professional development as if it was their own…. Mentoring and a leadership style that focuses on people have served me well and have brought about the greatest rewards of my career.”

As in all debriefings (shameless plug, I know) that follow the plus/delta model, we should ask the same questions about our own mentoring activities within our division: What are we doing well? What could we do better?