Avoiding complications by a hands-on mentor programme

Lack of residents due to COVID-19 pandemic. Can a mentor–mentee program during medical studies have a positive influence on the choice for specialist training in gynecology and obstetrics? A review of current literature and results of a national wide survey of medical students

Objective

The COVID-19 pandemic restricting clinical practice and exacerbating the lack of medical staff. There is currently a lack of young residents who are deciding on further training in gynecology and obstetrics. Design: review and prospective, cross-sectional study. Setting: the aim of this study was to investigate if structured mentoring programs can counteract this deficiency. Population: medical students took part from Germany in the clinical phase.

Methods

An anonymous questionnaire was developed and distributed to students from January to October 2020. Epidemiological data, questions about mentoring experiences, necessity and their expected influence on career planning were collected and statistically evaluated. Main outcome measures: structured mentoring-programs can influence the choice of subject. In particular, men are still underrepresented. Research on the topic of mentoring during in the field of gynaecology and obstetrics is completely lacking.

Results

A representative number of 927 medical students took part in the survey. 22% (170/906) of the students had already participated in a mentoring program with a significantly higher proportion of men (69%; 117/170; p < 0.001). Of these, 94% (453/170) said this was helpful. 6% (55/906) wanted to pursue a career in gynecology and obstetrics. When asked about their appreciation for structured mentoring programs in gynecology and obstetrics, 95% (880/906) would participate and 94% agreed (871/906) that this could have an impact on their choice of specialist and career planning.

Conclusions

An active provision of mentoring programs and more content can be a way of counteracting the shortage of residents in gynecology and obstetrics.

Barriers to Referral to Fellowship-trained Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery Subspecialists

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine patterns and barriers for referral to fellowship-trained minimally invasive gynecologic surgeons.

DESIGN

Questionnaire.

SETTING

United States and its territories and Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Actively practicing general obstetrician/gynecologists (OB/GYNs).

INTERVENTIONS

Internet-based survey.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 157 respondents, 144 (91.7%) general OB/GYNs were included. Subspecialty fellowship training resulted in the exclusion of 13 (8.3%) respondents. A total of 86 respondents (59.7%) considered referral to fellowship-trained minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) subspecialists. The top 3 cited reasons for nonreferral were adequate residency training (n = 84, 58.3%), preference for continuity of care (n = 48, 33.3%), and preference for referral to other subspecialists (n = 46, 31.9%). The top 3 cited reasons for referral to MIGS subspecialists were complex pathology (n = 92, 63.9%), complex medical and/or surgical history (n = 76, 52.8%), and out of scope of practice (n = 53, 36.8%). If providers required intraoperative assistance, respondents consulted an OB/GYN colleague with comparable training (n = 50, 34.7%), gynecologic oncologist (n = 48, 33.3%), or non-OB/GYN surgical subspecialist (n = 33, 22.9%). Factors that were not associated with the decision to refer to MIGS subspecialists included years in practice (p = .13), additional training experiences beyond residency (p = .45), and number of hysterectomies performed by laparotomy (p = .69). Self-reported high-volume surgeons (p <.01) were less likely to refer. In contrast, providers who self-reported as low-volume surgeons (p = .02) and were aware of MIGS subspecialists in the community (p <.01) were more likely to consider referral. Respondents reported using a laparoscopic approach to hysterectomy most frequently (n = 79, 54.9%). In contrast, 36.8% preferred the laparoscopic route for themselves or their partner, whereas 48.6% preferred the vaginal approach.

CONCLUSION

Most of the general OB/GYNs would consider referral to fellowship-trained MIGS subspecialists. Providers who reported adequate residency training and those who preferred continuity of care or referral to other surgical subspecialists were less likely to refer to MIGS subspecialists.

High enthusiasm about long lasting mentoring relationships and older mentors

BACKGROUND

Mentoring plays a pivotal role in workplace-based learning, especially in the medical realm. Organising a formal mentoring programme can be labor and time intensive and generally impractical in resource constrained medical schools with limited numbers of mentors. Hence, informal mentoring offers a valuable alternative, but will be more likely to be effective when mentors and protégés share similar views. It is therefore important to gain more insight into factors influencing perceptions of informal mentoring. This study aims to explore mentors and protégés' perceptions of informal mentoring and how these vary (or not) with gender, age and the duration of the relationship.

METHOD

We administered an Informal Mentor Role Instrument (IMRI) to medical practitioners and academics from Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire was developed for the study from other validated instruments. It contained 39 items grouped into 7 domains: acceptance, counselling, friendship, parenting, psychological support, role modelling and sociability.

RESULTS

A total of 103 mentors and 91 protégés completed the IMRI. Mentors had a better appreciation for the interpersonal aspects of informal mentoring than protégés, especially regarding acceptance, counselling and friendship. Moreover, being older and engaged in a longer mentoring relationship contributed to more positive perceptions of interpersonal aspects of mentoring, regardless of one's role (mentor or protégé).

CONCLUSION

It can be concluded that the expectations of mentors and protégés differed regarding the content and aim of the interpersonal characteristics of their mentoring relationship. We recommend mentors and protégés to more explicitly exchange their expectations of the informal mentoring relationship, as typically practiced in formal mentoring. Additionally, in our study, seniority and lasting relationships seem crucial for good informal mentoring. It appears beneficial to foster lasting informal mentoring relationships and to give more guidance to younger mentors.