OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to evaluate a formal mentorship program for second-year psychiatry residents at the University of Toronto after the program's first year of implementation. METHODS: Ten mentees and ten faculty mentors were interviewed by fellow second-year residents and an independent researcher, respectively, about their experiences in the program. Interview data were thematically coded and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Three major themes were identified. First, participants emphasized the importance of a natural, flexible, and engaging matching process for mentors and mentees. Many experienced the random assignment approach to matching and the mandatory nature of the program as barriers to developing a meaningful relationship with their mentors. Second, participants expressed a preference for geographic proximity between mentor and mentee workplaces and for meetings to take place in informal settings in order to improve the quality and quantity of their interactions. Lastly, participants felt that clear directions and expectations about the program's goals should be communicated, and that a forum for information sharing among mentors was needed. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the majority of participants believed that the program facilitated growth and development and provided positive opportunities for both mentors and mentees. While challenges were present in the program, participants provided tangible recommendations to improve the process.
OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to evaluate a formal mentorship program for second-year psychiatry residents at the University of Toronto after the program's first year of implementation. METHODS: Ten mentees and ten faculty mentors were interviewed by fellow second-year residents and an independent researcher, respectively, about their experiences in the program. Interview data were thematically coded and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Three major themes were identified. First, participants emphasized the importance of a natural, flexible, and engaging matching process for mentors and mentees. Many experienced the random assignment approach to matching and the mandatory nature of the program as barriers to developing a meaningful relationship with their mentors. Second, participants expressed a preference for geographic proximity between mentor and mentee workplaces and for meetings to take place in informal settings in order to improve the quality and quantity of their interactions. Lastly, participants felt that clear directions and expectations about the program's goals should be communicated, and that a forum for information sharing among mentors was needed. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the majority of participants believed that the program facilitated growth and development and provided positive opportunities for both mentors and mentees. While challenges were present in the program, participants provided tangible recommendations to improve the process.