AIM: Mentoring is widely acknowledged as being crucial for portfolio learning. The aim of this study is to examine how mentoring portfolio use has been implemented in undergraduate and postgraduate settings. METHOD: The results of interviews with six key persons involved in setting up portfolio use in medical education programmes were used to develop a questionnaire, which was administered to 30 coordinators of undergraduate and postgraduate portfolio programmes in the Netherlands and Flanders. RESULTS: The interviews yielded four main aspects of the portfolio mentoring process--educational aims, individual meetings, small group sessions and mentor characteristics. Based on the questionnaire data, 16 undergraduate and 14 postgraduate programmes were described. Providing feedback and stimulating reflection were the main objectives of the mentoring process. Individual meetings were the favourite method for mentoring (26 programmes). Small group sessions to support the use of portfolios were held in 16 programmes, mostly in the undergraduate setting. In general, portfolio mentors were clinically qualified academic staff trained for their mentoring tasks. CONCLUSION: This study provides a variety of practical insights into implementing mentoring processes in portfolio programmes.
AIM: Mentoring is widely acknowledged as being crucial for portfolio learning. The aim of this study is to examine how mentoring portfolio use has been implemented in undergraduate and postgraduate settings. METHOD: The results of interviews with six key persons involved in setting up portfolio use in medical education programmes were used to develop a questionnaire, which was administered to 30 coordinators of undergraduate and postgraduate portfolio programmes in the Netherlands and Flanders. RESULTS: The interviews yielded four main aspects of the portfolio mentoring process--educational aims, individual meetings, small group sessions and mentor characteristics. Based on the questionnaire data, 16 undergraduate and 14 postgraduate programmes were described. Providing feedback and stimulating reflection were the main objectives of the mentoring process. Individual meetings were the favourite method for mentoring (26 programmes). Small group sessions to support the use of portfolios were held in 16 programmes, mostly in the undergraduate setting. In general, portfolio mentors were clinically qualified academic staff trained for their mentoring tasks. CONCLUSION: This study provides a variety of practical insights into implementing mentoring processes in portfolio programmes.