Jason C Hoffmann1, Jonathan Minkin2, Vanessa Karimi2, Shantanu Warhadpande3, Minhaj S Khaja4, Zachary L Bercu5, Bill Majdalany5, Claire S Kaufman6, Charles E Martin7. 1. Department of Radiology, NYU Winthrop Hospital, Mineola, NY. Electronic address: Jason.Hoffmann@nyulangone.org. 2. Department of Radiology, NYU Winthrop Hospital, Mineola, NY; Stony Brook Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook, NY. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 4. Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. 5. Department of Radiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA. 6. Department of Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT. 7. Department of Radiology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence and structure of mentorship programs in interventional radiology (IR) residency programs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 12-question anonymous survey was distributed via email to all 78 program directors (PDs) of United States IR residency programs. The survey included information about the presence or absence of a formal mentorship program at their institution, how the program functions, potential barriers to implementation, and future plans for mentorship. RESULTS: Twenty-three of 78 integrated IR residency PDs completed the survey (response rate 29.5%). Thirteen of 23 reports that they currently have a formal mentorship program in place and 11 of 13 report no direct departmental support for mentorship. Of those that do not have a mentorship program in place, 5 of 10 report that implementation is underway. These programs report that the absence of a mentorship program is due to a lack of dedicated time and financial support. While 8 of 23 PDs were unaware of the Society of Interventional Radiology Mentor Match program, 6of 23 were registered as mentors through it. Nearly all PDs reported interest in receiving mentoring resources from SIR with the most popular choices being a dedicated mentorship educational course at the SIR annual meeting and regular mentorship articles and practical tips in publications such as IR quarterly. CONCLUSIONS: Despite involvement of many IR PDs in mentorship, numerous residency programs lack a formal mentorship program. Of those with a program, most don't receive direct departmental support and those without a program cite lack of time and financial support as barriers to effective implementation.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence and structure of mentorship programs in interventional radiology (IR) residency programs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 12-question anonymous survey was distributed via email to all 78 program directors (PDs) of United States IR residency programs. The survey included information about the presence or absence of a formal mentorship program at their institution, how the program functions, potential barriers to implementation, and future plans for mentorship. RESULTS: Twenty-three of 78 integrated IR residency PDs completed the survey (response rate 29.5%). Thirteen of 23 reports that they currently have a formal mentorship program in place and 11 of 13 report no direct departmental support for mentorship. Of those that do not have a mentorship program in place, 5 of 10 report that implementation is underway. These programs report that the absence of a mentorship program is due to a lack of dedicated time and financial support. While 8 of 23 PDs were unaware of the Society of Interventional Radiology Mentor Match program, 6of 23 were registered as mentors through it. Nearly all PDs reported interest in receiving mentoring resources from SIR with the most popular choices being a dedicated mentorship educational course at the SIR annual meeting and regular mentorship articles and practical tips in publications such as IR quarterly. CONCLUSIONS: Despite involvement of many IR PDs in mentorship, numerous residency programs lack a formal mentorship program. Of those with a program, most don't receive direct departmental support and those without a program cite lack of time and financial support as barriers to effective implementation.