Tanya L Zakrison1, Travis M Polk, Rachel Dixon, Akpofure P Ekeh, Kirby R Gross, Kimberly A Davis, Stanley J Kurek, Nicole A Stassen, Mayur B Patel. 1. From the Division of Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, Department of Surgery (T.L.Z.), University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida; Naval Medical Center (T.M.P.), Portsmouth, Virginia; Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (R.D.), Chicago, Illinois; Department of Surgery (A.P.E.), Boonshoft School of Medicine, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio; US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (K.R.G.), Fort Detrick, Maryland; Section of General Surgery, Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, Department of Surgery (K.A.D.), Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; Division of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, Baylor Scott & White, Texas A & M University College of Medicine, Temple, Texas; Department of Surgery (S.J.K.), University of South Florida Morsani, Tampa; Lawnwood Regional Medical Center (S.J.K.), Fort Pierce, FL; Division of Acute Care and Trauma Surgery, Department of Surgery (N.A.S.), University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York; Division of Trauma, Emergency General Surgery, and Surgical Critical Care, Departments of Surgery, Neurosurgery, and Hearing and Speech Sciences, Section of Surgical Sciences (M.B.P.), Vanderbilt Brain Institute, Vanderbilt Center for Health Services Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Center; Surgical Service, General Surgery Section (M.B.P.), Nashville VA Medical Center; and Tennessee Valley Healthcare System (M.B.P.), US Department of Veterans Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mentorship programs in surgery are used to overcome barriers to clinical and academic productivity, research success, and work-life balance. We sought to determine if the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) Mentoring Program has met its goals of fostering academic and personal growth in young acute care surgeons. METHODS: We conducted a systematic program evaluation of EAST Mentoring Program's first 4 years. Demographic information was collected from EAST records, mentorship program applications, and mentee-mentor career development plans. We reviewed the career development plans for thematic commonalities and results of a structured, online questionnaire distributed since program inception. A mixed methods approach was used to better understand the program goals from both mentee and mentor perspectives, as well as attitudes and barriers regarding the perceived success of this career development program. RESULTS: During 2012 to 2015, 65 mentoring dyads were paired and 60 completed the program. Of 184 surveys distributed, 108 were returned (57% response rate). Respondents were evenly distributed between mentees and mentors (53 vs. 55, p = 0.768). In participant surveys, mentoring relationships were viewed to focus on research (45%), "sticky situations" (e.g., communication, work-life balance) (27%), education (18%), or administrative issues (10%). Mentees were more focused on research and education versus mentors (74% vs. 50%; p = 0.040). Mentees felt that goals were "always" or "usually" met versus mentors (89% vs. 77%; p = 0.096). Two barriers to successful mentorship included time and communication, with most pairs communicating by email. Most respondents (91%) planned to continue the relationship beyond the EAST Mentoring Program and recommended the experience to colleagues. CONCLUSION: Mentee satisfaction with the EAST Mentoring Program was high. Mentoring is a beneficial tool to promote success among EAST's young members, but differences exist between mentee and mentor perceptions. Revising communication expectations and time commitment to improve career development may help our young acute care surgeons.
BACKGROUND: Mentorship programs in surgery are used to overcome barriers to clinical and academic productivity, research success, and work-life balance. We sought to determine if the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) Mentoring Program has met its goals of fostering academic and personal growth in young acute care surgeons. METHODS: We conducted a systematic program evaluation of EAST Mentoring Program's first 4 years. Demographic information was collected from EAST records, mentorship program applications, and mentee-mentor career development plans. We reviewed the career development plans for thematic commonalities and results of a structured, online questionnaire distributed since program inception. A mixed methods approach was used to better understand the program goals from both mentee and mentor perspectives, as well as attitudes and barriers regarding the perceived success of this career development program. RESULTS: During 2012 to 2015, 65 mentoring dyads were paired and 60 completed the program. Of 184 surveys distributed, 108 were returned (57% response rate). Respondents were evenly distributed between mentees and mentors (53 vs. 55, p = 0.768). In participant surveys, mentoring relationships were viewed to focus on research (45%), "sticky situations" (e.g., communication, work-life balance) (27%), education (18%), or administrative issues (10%). Mentees were more focused on research and education versus mentors (74% vs. 50%; p = 0.040). Mentees felt that goals were "always" or "usually" met versus mentors (89% vs. 77%; p = 0.096). Two barriers to successful mentorship included time and communication, with most pairs communicating by email. Most respondents (91%) planned to continue the relationship beyond the EAST Mentoring Program and recommended the experience to colleagues. CONCLUSION: Mentee satisfaction with the EAST Mentoring Program was high. Mentoring is a beneficial tool to promote success among EAST's young members, but differences exist between mentee and mentor perceptions. Revising communication expectations and time commitment to improve career development may help our young acute care surgeons.
Authors: Melina R Kibbe; Carlos A Pellegrini; Courtney M Townsend; Irene B Helenowski; Marco G Patti Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: L P Fried; C A Francomano; S M MacDonald; E M Wagner; E J Stokes; K M Carbone; W B Bias; M M Newman; J D Stobo Journal: JAMA Date: 1996-09-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Zainab Abedin; Ewelina Biskup; Karin Silet; Jane M Garbutt; Kurt Kroenke; Mitchell D Feldman; Richard McGee; Michael Fleming; Harold Alan Pincus Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2012-01-10 Impact factor: 4.689
Authors: Vicki A Jackson; Anita Palepu; Laura Szalacha; Cheryl Caswell; Phyllis L Carr; Thomas Inui Journal: Acad Med Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 6.893