OBJECTIVE: A formal mentoring program for residents was introduced at our Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2004. The objective of this study was to assess residents' attitudes toward and suggestions for the mentoring program. STUDY DESIGN/ METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire with Likert-scaled questions on multiple areas of the program was distributed to all residents. The responses were scored with a rating of 0, 1, and 2, and mean ratings were calculated. RESULTS/ CONCLUSIONS: The response rate was 28 of 40 (70.0%). Areas of the mentoring program deemed most important were "career planning" (mean score 1.85) and "scientific research" (1.51). The most negative aspects of the program were "lack of time" of the mentees (1.57) and the mentors (1.29). When matching mentees with mentors, the most important factors were "specialty/subspecialty" (1.71), "research interests"(1.65), "personality"(1.54), and the "ability to pick one's own mentor"(1.31). The majority of respondents (9 of 14, 64.3%) welcomed e-mail reminders to set up meetings with their mentor. These data have resulted in significant changes in our mentoring program. Future directions include continued surveillance of our program and collaboration between different residency programs in order to maximize the benefit of the resident mentor program.
OBJECTIVE: A formal mentoring program for residents was introduced at our Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2004. The objective of this study was to assess residents' attitudes toward and suggestions for the mentoring program. STUDY DESIGN/ METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire with Likert-scaled questions on multiple areas of the program was distributed to all residents. The responses were scored with a rating of 0, 1, and 2, and mean ratings were calculated. RESULTS/ CONCLUSIONS: The response rate was 28 of 40 (70.0%). Areas of the mentoring program deemed most important were "career planning" (mean score 1.85) and "scientific research" (1.51). The most negative aspects of the program were "lack of time" of the mentees (1.57) and the mentors (1.29). When matching mentees with mentors, the most important factors were "specialty/subspecialty" (1.71), "research interests"(1.65), "personality"(1.54), and the "ability to pick one's own mentor"(1.31). The majority of respondents (9 of 14, 64.3%) welcomed e-mail reminders to set up meetings with their mentor. These data have resulted in significant changes in our mentoring program. Future directions include continued surveillance of our program and collaboration between different residency programs in order to maximize the benefit of the resident mentor program.
Authors: Bruce D Levy; Joel T Katz; Marshall A Wolf; Jane S Sillman; Robert I Handin; Victor J Dzau Journal: Acad Med Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 6.893