Background Mentoring's success in enhancing a mentee's professional and personal development, and a host organisations' reputation has been called into question, amidst a lack of effective tools to evaluate mentoring relationships and guide oversight of mentoring programs. A scoping review is proposed to map available literature on mentoring assessment tools in Internal Medicine to guide design of new tools. Objective The review aims to explore how novice mentoring is assessed in Internal Medicine, including the domains assessed, and the strengths and limitations of the assessment methods. Methods Guided by Levac et al.'s framework for scoping reviews, 12 reviewers conducted independent literature reviews of assessment tools in novice mentoring in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ERIC, Cochrane, GreyLit, Web of Science, Open Dissertations and British Education Index databases. A 'split approach' saw research members adopting either Braun and Clarke's approach to thematic analysis or directed content analysis to independently evaluate the data and improve validity and objectivity of the findings.

Conclusion CNEP mentoring is an evolved form of novice mentoring built on a consistent mentoring approach supported by an effective host organization. The host organization marshals assessment, support and oversight of the program and allows flexibility within the approach to meet the particular needs of mentees, mentors and senior mentors. Whilst near-peer mentors and e-mentoring can make up for the lack of senior mentor availability, their effectiveness hinges upon a common mentoring approach. To better support the CNEP program deeper understanding of the mentoring dynamics, policing and mentor and mentee training processes are required. The CNEP mentoring tool too needs to be validated.

Background: In 2007, the Care of the Dying clinical coordinated Pathway (CDP) was adapted from the United Kingdom Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) and implemented in a tertiary hospital in Singapore to improve care in oncology and subsequently renal patients. With concerns about its use after the Neuberger review, an audit of patients on the CDP was performed to determine if the use of such a pathway should be continued locally. Methods: A two-year retrospective audit of CDP use was conducted. Aspects of communication, initiation of CDP, patient monitoring, medications, nutrition, and hydration were assessed. Results: In the 111 patient records reviewed, there were documented extent of care discussions with 94% of caregivers and 29% of patients before CDP initiation. Of the 88% of CDPs initiated within office hours, 90% fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All patients were monitored at least every eight hours. Seventy-three patients (66%) were prescribed opioids or sedatives and subsequently monitored appropriately, albeit 56% had no documented prior discussion with caregivers regarding medication use. Indications for opioid use were documented for all patients and only one patient had documentation of excessive sedation. Oral feeding and parenteral hydration were continued in 85% and 74% of patients, respectively. Conclusion: There was no documented compromise in medication safety, clinical monitoring, and provision of nutrition and hydration for patients on the CDP. However, documentation of important end-of-life decisions and conversations remain poor. Development of an alternative care tool encouraging systematic discussion and documentation of individualized end-of-life care plans should be considered.

No abstract