Enhancing Mentoring in Palliative Care: An Evidence Based Mentoring Framework

Background: Growing concerns over ethical issues in mentoring in medicine and surgery have hindered efforts to reinitiate mentoring for Palliative Care (PC) physicians following the easing of COVID-19 restrictions. Ranging from the misappropriation of mentee’s work to bullying, ethical issues in mentoring are attributed to poor understanding and structuring of mentoring programs, underlining the need for a consistent approach to mentoring practices. Methods: Given diverse practices across different settings and the employ of various methodologies, a novel approach to narrative reviews (NR)s is proposed to summarize, interpret, and critique prevailing data on novice mentoring. To overcome prevailing concerns surrounding the reproducibility and transparency of narrative reviews, the Systematic Evidenced Based Approach (SEBA) adopts a structured approach to searching and summarizing the included articles and employed concurrent content and thematic analysis that was overseen by a team of experts. Results: A total of 18 915 abstracts were reviewed, 62 full text articles evaluated and 41 articles included. Ten themes/categories were ascertained identified including Nature; Stakeholders; Relationship; Approach; Environment; Benefits; Barriers; Assessments; Theories and Definitions. Conclusion: By compiling and scrutinizing prevailing practice it is possible to appreciate the notion of the mentoring ecosystem which sees each mentee, mentor, and host organization brings with them their own microenvironment that contains their respective goals, abilities, and contextual considerations. Built around competency based mentoring stages, it is possible to advance a flexible yet consistent novice mentoring framework. </jats:sec

A systematic scoping review of approaches to teaching and assessing empathy in medicine

10.1186/s12909-021-02697-6BMC Medical Education21129

Mentoring in palliative medicine in the time of covid-19: a systematic scoping review : Mentoring programs during COVID-19.

IntroductionThe redeployment of mentors and restrictions on in-person face-to-face mentoring meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic has compromised mentoring efforts in Palliative Medicine (PM). Seeking to address these gaps, we evaluate the notion of a combined novice, peer-, near-peer and e-mentoring (CNEP) and interprofessional team-based mentoring (IPT) program.MethodsA Systematic Evidence Based Approach (SEBA) guided systematic scoping review was carried out to study accounts of CNEP and IPT from articles published between 1st January 2000 and 28th February 2021. To enhance trustworthiness, concurrent thematic and content analysis of articles identified from structured database search using terms relating to interprofessional, virtual and peer or near-peer mentoring in medical education were employed to bring together the key elements within included articles.ResultsFifteen thousand one hundred twenty one abstracts were reviewed, 557 full text articles were evaluated, and 92 articles were included. Four themes and categories were identified and combined using the SEBA's Jigsaw and Funnelling Process to reveal 4 domains - characteristics, mentoring stages, assessment methods, and host organizations. These domains suggest that CNEP's structured virtual and near-peer mentoring process complement IPT's accessible and non-hierarchical approach under the oversight of the host organizations to create a robust mentoring program.ConclusionThis systematic scoping review forwards an evidence-based framework to guide a CNEP-IPT program. At the same time, more research into the training and assessment methods of mentors, near peers and mentees, the dynamics of mentoring interactions and the longitudinal support of the mentoring relationships and programs should be carried out

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

A systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of interprofessional mentoring in medicine from 2000 to 2019

10.1080/13561820.2020.1818700JOURNAL OF INTERPROFESSIONAL CAR

Assessing mentoring: A scoping review of mentoring assessment tools in internal medicine between 1990 and 2019.

BACKGROUND:Mentoring's success in enhancing a mentee's professional and personal development, and a host organisations' reputation has been called into question, amidst a lack of effective tools to evaluate mentoring relationships and guide oversight of mentoring programs. A scoping review is proposed to map available literature on mentoring assessment tools in Internal Medicine to guide design of new tools. OBJECTIVE:The review aims to explore how novice mentoring is assessed in Internal Medicine, including the domains assessed, and the strengths and limitations of the assessment methods. METHODS:Guided by Levac et al.'s framework for scoping reviews, 12 reviewers conducted independent literature reviews of assessment tools in novice mentoring in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ERIC, Cochrane, GreyLit, Web of Science, Open Dissertations and British Education Index databases. A 'split approach' saw research members adopting either Braun and Clarke's approach to thematic analysis or directed content analysis to independently evaluate the data and improve validity and objectivity of the findings. RESULTS:9662 abstracts were identified, 187 full-text articles reviewed, and 54 full-text articles included. There was consensus on the themes and categories identified through the use of the split approach, which were the domains assessed and methods of assessment. CONCLUSION:Most tools fail to contend with mentoring's evolving nature and provide mere snap shots of the mentoring process largely from the mentee's perspective. The lack of holistic, longitudinal and validated assessments propagate fears that ethical issues in mentoring are poorly recognized and addressed. To this end, we forward a framework for the design of 'fit for purpose' multi-dimensional tools. PRACTICE POINTS:Most tools focus on the mentee's perspective, do not consider mentoring's evolving nature and fail to consider mentoring holistically nor longitudinallyA new tool capable of addressing these gaps must also consider inputs from all stakeholders and take a longitudinal perspective of mentoring

A systematic scoping review of teaching and evaluating communications in the intensive care unit

Introduction: Whilst the importance of effective communications in facilitating good clinical decision-making and ensuring effective patient and family-centred outcomes in Intensive Care Units (ICU)s has been underscored amidst the global COVID-19 pandemic, training and assessment of communication skills for healthcare professionals (HCPs) in ICUs remain unstructured Methods: To enhance the transparency and reproducibility, Krishna’s Systematic Evidenced Based Approach (SEBA) guided Systematic Scoping Review (SSR), is employed to scrutinise what is known about teaching and evaluating communication training programmes for HCPs in the ICU setting. SEBA sees use of a structured search strategy involving eight bibliographic databases, the employ of a team of researchers to tabulate and summarise the included articles and two other teams to carry out content and thematic analysis the included articles and comparison of these independent findings and construction of a framework for the discussion that is overseen by the independent expert team. Results: 9532 abstracts were identified, 239 articles were reviewed, and 63 articles were included and analysed. Four similar themes and categories were identified. These were strategies employed to teach communication, factors affecting communication training, strategies employed to evaluate communication and outcomes of communication training. Conclusion: This SEBA guided SSR suggests that ICU communications training must involve a structured, multimodal approach to training. This must be accompanied by robust methods of assessment and personalised timely feedback and support for the trainees. Such an approach will equip HCPs with greater confidence and prepare them for a variety of settings, including that of the evolving COVID-19 pandemic.</jats:p

A systematic scoping review of ethical issues in mentoring in medical schools

BACKGROUND:Mentoring provides mentees and mentors with holistic support and research opportunities. Yet, the quality of this support has been called into question amidst suggestions that mentoring is prone to bullying and professional lapses. These concerns jeopardise mentoring's role in medical schools and demand closer scrutiny. METHODS:To better understand prevailing concerns, a novel approach to systematic scoping reviews (SSR) s is proposed to map prevailing ethical issues in mentoring in an accountable and reproducible manner. Ten members of the research team carried out systematic and independent searches of PubMed, Embase, ERIC, ScienceDirect, Scopus, OpenGrey and Mednar databases. The individual researchers employed 'negotiated consensual validation' to determine the final list of articles to be analysed. The reviewers worked in three independent teams. One team summarised the included articles. The other teams employed independent thematic and content analysis respectively. The findings of the three approaches were compared. The themes from non-evidence based and grey literature were also compared with themes from research driven data. RESULTS:Four thousand six titles were reviewed and 51 full text articles were included. Findings from thematic and content analyses were similar and reflected the tabulated summaries. The themes/categories identified were ethical concerns, predisposing factors and possible solutions at the mentor and mentee, mentoring relationship and/or host organisation level. Ethical concerns were found to stem from issues such as power differentials and lack of motivation whilst predisposing factors comprised of the mentor's lack of experience and personality conflicts. Possible solutions include better program oversight and the fostering of an effective mentoring environment. CONCLUSIONS:This structured SSR found that ethical issues in mentoring occur as a result of inconducive mentoring environments. As such, further studies and systematic reviews of mentoring structures, cultures and remediation must follow so as to guide host organisations in their endeavour to improve mentoring in medical schools

A Scoping Review of Professional Identity Formation in Undergraduate Medical Education

Abstract Background Professional identity formation (PIF) in medical students is a multifactorial phenomenon, shaped by ways that clinical and non-clinical experiences, expectations and environmental factors merge with individual values, beliefs and obligations. The relationship between students’ evolving professional identity and self-identity or personhood remains ill-defined, making it challenging for medical schools to support PIF systematically and strategically. Primarily, to capture prevailing literature on PIF in medical school education, and secondarily, to ascertain how PIF influences on medical students may be viewed through the lens of the ring theory of personhood (RToP) and to identify ways that medical schools support PIF. Methods A systematic scoping review was conducted using the systematic evidence-based approach. Articles published between 1 January 2000 and 1 July 2020 related to PIF in medical students were searched using PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC and Scopus. Articles of all study designs (quantitative and qualitative), published or translated into English, were included. Concurrent thematic and directed content analyses were used to evaluate the data. Results A total of 10443 abstracts were identified, 272 full-text articles evaluated, and 76 articles included. Thematic and directed content analyses revealed similar themes and categories as follows: characteristics of PIF in relation to professionalism, role of socialization in PIF, PIF enablers and barriers, and medical school approaches to supporting PIF. Discussion PIF involves iterative construction, deconstruction and inculcation of professional beliefs, values and behaviours into a pre-existent identity. Through the lens of RToP, factors were elucidated that promote or hinder students’ identity development on individual, relational or societal levels. If inadequately or inappropriately supported, enabling factors become barriers to PIF. Medical schools employ an all-encompassing approach to support PIF, illuminating the need for distinct and deliberate longitudinal monitoring and mentoring to foster students’ balanced integration of personal and professional identities over time. </jats:sec