The Medical Oncology resident mentor: situation and workload

Abstract

Purpose The Spanish Society for Medical Oncology (SEOM, for its acronym in Spanish) and the National Commission for the Specialty of Medical Oncology seek to highlight the important workload and unrecognized dedication entailed in working as a Medical Oncology (MO) resident mentor, as well as its relevance for the quality of teaching units and the future of the specialty. Materials and methodsThe current situation and opinion regarding the activity of MO resident mentors was analyzed by reviewing the standing national and autonomic community regulations and via an online survey targeting mentors, residents, and physicians who are not MO mentors. The project was supervised by a specially designated group that agreed on a proposal containing recommendations for improvement. Results Of the MO mentors, 90% stated that they did not have enough time to perform their mentoring duties. An estimated 172 h/year on average was dedicated to mentoring, which represents 10.1% of the total time. MO mentors dedicate an average of 6.9 h/month to these duties outside their workday. Forty-five percent of the mentors feel that their role is scantly recognized, if at all. Conclusions The study reveals the substantial dedication and growing complexity of MO resident mentoring. A series of recommendations are issued to improve the conditions in which it is carried out, including the design of systems that adapt to the professional activity in those departments that have time set aside for mentoring tasks.

Enhancing Mentoring in Palliative Care: An Evidence Based Mentoring Framework

“…Recent reviews suggest that the host organization plays a critical role in ensuring consistency 3 , 15 , 59 , 63 - 88 yet flexibility 15 , 16 , 45 , 59 , 67 , 69 - 71 , 73 - 79 , 81 , 84 , 89 - 103 within the mentoring program. By spearheading the program, the host organization is deeply involved in formalizing the mentoring approach and its structure.…”

Assessing mentoring: A scoping review of mentoring assessment tools in internal medicine between 1990 and 2019

“…Mentoring process. Five studies evaluated mentee's and/or mentor's understanding and expectations of the mentoring process [86,[89][90][91][92]. Eight studies assessed the mentee's mentoring needs to guide recruitment of mentees and mentors decisions and/or guide the mentoring process [83,86,[92][93][94][95][96][97].…”

“…The mentor's impact upon the mentoring process was evaluated using selfreported changes in practice and the mentee's perception of the mentor's abilities. 10 studies [36,80,83,86,88,89,98,108,117,118] assessed the roles of the mentor from the mentee and mentor's perspective while five studies [36,81,88,91,119] asked the mentors about their experiences as a mentor.…”

“…14 studies assessed the success of the mentoring process by gauging the mentee's general level of satisfaction with the mentoring program [78, 79, 82-85, 92, 94, 101, 103, 107, 113, 120, 121]. Nine studies [81,84,88,92,94,99,110,121] assessed mentee satisfaction in the matching process, four studies [84,91,94,122] assessed satisfaction in the host organisation's funding, incentives and support for mentorship and two studies assessed interests in the program [89,105] and satisfaction in the length of the mentoring process [78,80].…”

The Pivotal Role of Host Organizations in Enhancing Mentoring in Internal Medicine: A Scoping Review

“…The host establishes its selection, vetting, matching and training for mentees and mentors 47,67,83,85,88,[90][91][92][93][95][96][97][98][99][100][101]104,107,111,118,121,[123][124][125]129,133,134,136,138,142 And may use contractual agreements 67,90,[92][93][94]101,102,131 To align expectations 47,84,85,88,90,92,97,101,[108][109][110]131,139,…”