CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Journal of Academic Ophthalmology 2022; 14(02): e178-e186
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1756133
Research Article

Outcomes of a Five-Year Formal Ophthalmology Residency Mentorship Program

1   Department of Ophthalmology, Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine, Portland, Oregon
,
Sarah T Glass
2   Department of Ophthalmology, Casey Eye Institute, Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine, Portland, Oregon
,
John L Clements
2   Department of Ophthalmology, Casey Eye Institute, Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine, Portland, Oregon
3   Department of Ophthalmology, Veterans Affairs Portland Healthcare System, Portland, Oregon
,
Leah G Reznick
2   Department of Ophthalmology, Casey Eye Institute, Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine, Portland, Oregon
,
Ambar Faridi
2   Department of Ophthalmology, Casey Eye Institute, Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine, Portland, Oregon
3   Department of Ophthalmology, Veterans Affairs Portland Healthcare System, Portland, Oregon
› Author Affiliations
Funding This work was supported in part by the Unrestricted Grant from Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc. to the Oregon Health & Science University Casey Eye Institute and by NIH/NEI core grant (P30EY010572).

Abstract

Objective This article describes a formal ophthalmology residency mentorship program, identifies its strengths and weaknesses over 5 years of implementation, and proposes strategies to improve qualitative outcomes of the mentorship program.

Design Cross-sectional anonymous online survey.

Subjects All current and former mentees and mentors at the Casey Eye Institute (CEI) residency program from 2016 to 2021.

Methods All eligible participants were contacted via email to complete a survey to describe and analyze their experiences with the CEI's formal residency mentorship program.

Results Of the 65 surveyed participants, 82% preferred in-person meetings and met up from 2 to 3 times (44%) to 4 to 6 times (38.5%) annually at 15 minutes to 1 hour (48%) or 1 to 2 hours (42%) duration. Sixty-two percent of meetings were initiated by mentors, 8% by mentees, and 32% shared responsibilities equally. Participants also identified the three most important qualities for successful mentor-mentee relationship as personality (33.6%), communication styles (29.2%), and extracurricular interests/hobbies (16.8%). Mentees valued career advising, networking, and wellness support over academic and research mentorship. Subjective outcomes showed 25% of the mentee and 43% of the mentors agreed the mentorship program was a valuable experience. Comparably, 14% of the mentees and 38% of the mentors prioritized the relationship. There was a strong correlation between participants who prioritized the relationship and acknowledged it as a valuable experience (p < 0.01). Eighteen percent of the mentees and 43% of the mentors found the relationship effective and met their expectations. Twenty-one percent of the mentees and 38% of the mentors believed they had the tools and skills necessary to be effective in their respective roles.

Conclusion Our survey identified that weaknesses of the mentorship program include ineffective communications, inadequate preparation in their respective roles, and lack of priority focus on the relationship. We propose strategies to strengthen our program through creating workshops to clarify roles and responsibilities, emphasizing accountability with a contract statement, and implementing a new matching algorithm to customize participants' experience. Additional studies from other residencies with formal mentorship programs are warranted to identify, strategize, and foster high-quality mentorship.



Publication History

Received: 01 September 2021

Accepted: 20 July 2022

Article published online:
22 August 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 
  • References

  • 1 Mentorship. Merriam-Webster. 1828. Accessed February 21, 2022, at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mentorship
  • 2 Ramanan RA, Taylor WC, Davis RB, Phillips RS. Mentoring matters. Mentoring and career preparation in internal medicine residency training. J Gen Intern Med 2006; 21 (04) 340-345
  • 3 Taherian K, Shekarchian M. Mentoring for doctors. Do its benefits outweigh its disadvantages?. Med Teach 2008; 30 (04) e95-e99
  • 4 Tsai JC, Lee PP, Chasteen S, Taylor RJ, Brennan MW, Schmidt GE. Resident physician mentoring program in ophthalmology: the Tennessee experience. Arch Ophthalmol 2006; 124 (02) 264-267
  • 5 Freeman SR, Greene RE, Kimball AB. et al. US dermatology residents' satisfaction with training and mentoring: survey results from the 2005 and 2006 Las Vegas Dermatology Seminars. Arch Dermatol 2008; 144 (07) 896-900
  • 6 Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusić A. Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review. JAMA 2006; 296 (09) 1103-1115
  • 7 Wadhwa V, Nagy P, Chhabra A, Lee CS. How effective are your mentoring relationships? Mentoring quiz for residents. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 2017; 46 (01) 3-5
  • 8 Murray E, Gruppen L, Catton P, Hays R, Woolliscroft JO. The accountability of clinical education: its definition and assessment. Med Educ 2000; 34 (10) 871-879
  • 9 Spike N, Alexander H, Elliott S. et al. In-training assessment - its potential in enhancing clinical teaching. Med Educ 2000; 34 (10) 858-861
  • 10 Wright SM, Kern DE, Kolodner K, Howard DM, Brancati FL. Attributes of excellent attending-physician role models. N Engl J Med 1998; 339 (27) 1986-1993
  • 11 Sachdeva AK. Preceptorship, mentorship, and the adult learner in medical and health sciences education. J Cancer Educ 1996; 11 (03) 131-136
  • 12 Rodney WM. Role models during residency training important. Fam Med 1994; 26 (08) 471
  • 13 Levy BD, Katz JT, Wolf MA, Sillman JS, Handin RI, Dzau VJ. An initiative in mentoring to promote residents' and faculty members' careers. Acad Med 2004; 79 (09) 845-850
  • 14 Nassrallah G, Arora S, Kulkarni S, Hutnik CML. Perspective on a formal mentorship program in ophthalmology residency. Can J Ophthalmol 2017; 52 (04) 321-322
  • 15 Zerzan JT, Hess R, Schur E, Phillips RS, Rigotti N. Making the most of mentors: a guide for mentees. Acad Med 2009; 84 (01) 140-144
  • 16 Taylor CA, Taylor JC, Stoller JK. The influence of mentorship and role modeling on developing physician-leaders: views of aspiring and established physician-leaders. J Gen Intern Med 2009; 24 (10) 1130-1134
  • 17 Straus SE, Johnson MO, Marquez C, Feldman MD. Characteristics of successful and failed mentoring relationships: a qualitative study across two academic health centers. Acad Med 2013; 88 (01) 82-89