Exploring Mentoring Experiences, Perceptions, and Needs of General Internal Medicine Clinician Educators Navigating Academia: a Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies examined specific mentoring needs and preferences of clinician educators (CEs). Further research on CEs' perceptions of mentoring adequacy, as related to educational development and career advancement, is needed. OBJECTIVE: The study aims were to (1) explore general internal medicine CEs' experiences as mentees within various mentoring models; (2) examine the perceived quality, nature, and impact of mentoring on career development; and (3) determine whether specific models of mentoring impact their attitudes towards mentoring. DESIGN: Sequential mixed methods study design answered the study questions. PARTICIPANTS: Society of General Internal Medicine members identifying themselves as CEs. MAIN MEASURES/APPROACH: Participants completed an anonymous online survey and a subsample participated in two semi-structured focus group discussions. Outcomes of interest were perceptions of mentoring experiences, and perspectives on quality of mentoring as well as mentoring needs specific to clinician educators. KEY RESULTS: One hundred thirty-nine participants completed the survey (37% response rate) with 20 participants in focus group discussions. Among CEs with perceived high-quality mentor relationships (e.g., reporting strongly agree), peer mentorship was viewed as adequate mentorship (45% (n = 17) vs 24% (n = 24), p < 0.05), as beneficial for career development (77% (n = 40) vs 48% (n = 41), p < 0.01) and as being challenged to become a better CE (58% (n = 30) vs 35% (n = 29), p < 0.05), compared to reporting agree or lower. Qualitative analysis generated four themes: (1) A mentoring team promotes career advancement, (2) peer mentors are important at every stage of a CE's career, (3) there is inadequate mentoring specific to CE needs, and (4) mentoring needs protected time and skill development. CONCLUSIONS: The traditional dyadic mentoring relationship may not adequately address all professional needs of CEs. A mentoring team can provide valuable perspectives on career goals. Peer mentoring can be powerful for professional growth. Mentoring needs change at different career stages and training in mentoring skills is essential.

Clinician-Educator Training and Its Impact on Career Success: a Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinician-educator (CE) careers in academic medicine are heterogeneous. Expectations for CEs have grown, along with a need to better prepare CEs for these roles. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether advanced education training is associated with productivity and success. DESIGN: We used a sequential mixed methods approach, collecting quantitative survey data and qualitative focus groups data. We developed a three-tiered categorization of advanced training to reflect intensity by program type. PARTICIPANTS: We surveyed CEs in the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) and conducted two focus groups at an SGIM annual meeting. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were academic productivity (manuscripts, presentations, etc.) and leadership role attainment. Secondary analysis examined the interactive effect of gender and training intensity on these outcomes. KEY RESULTS: A total of 198 completed the survey (response rate 53%). Compared with medium- or low-intensity training, high-intensity training was associated with a greater likelihood of publishing ≥ 3 first- or senior-author manuscripts (adjusted OR 2.6; CI 0.8-8.6; p = 0.002), teaching ≥ 3 lectures/workshops at the regional/national/international level (adjusted OR 5.7; CI 1.5-21.3; p = 0.001), and having ≥ 3 regional/national committee memberships (adjusted OR 3.4; CI 1.0-11.7; p = 0.04). Among participants in the "no training" and "high-intensity training" categories, men were more likely to have ≥ 3 publications (OR 4.87 and 3.17, respectively), while women in the high intensity category had a likelihood similar to men with no training (OR 4.81 vs. OR 4.87). Participants felt the value of advanced training exists not only in content but also in networking opportunities that programs provide. CONCLUSIONS: While opinions were divided as to whether advanced training is necessary to position oneself for education roles, it is associated with greater academic productivity and reduced gender disparity in the publication domain. Institutions should consider providing opportunities for CEs to pursue advanced education training.

How clinical supervisors develop trust in their trainees: a qualitative study.

CONTEXT: Clinical supervisors oversee trainees' performance while granting them increasing opportunities to work independently. Although the factors contributing to supervisors' trust in their trainees to conduct clinical work have been identified, how the development of trust is shaped by these factors remains less clear. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to determine how supervisors develop and experience trust in resident (postgraduate years 2 and 3) trainees in the clinical workplace. METHODS: Internal medicine in-patient supervisors at two institutions were interviewed about the meaning and experience of developing trust in resident trainees. Transcribed data were coded and analysed using a phenomenographic approach. RESULTS: Forty-three supervisors participated. Supervisors characterised the meaning of trust from the perspectives of trainee competence and leadership or from their own perspective of needing to provide more or less supervision. Supervisors initially considered trust to be usually independent of prior knowledge of the resident, and then used sources of information about trust to develop their judgements of trust. Sources, which incorporated inference, included supervisors' comparisons with a standard, direct observation of the trainee as a team leader or care provider, and stakeholder input from team members, patients and families. Barriers against and accelerators to trust formation related to the resident, supervisor, resident-supervisor relationship, context and task. Trust formation had implications for supervisors' roles, residents' increasingly independent provision of care, and team functioning. CONCLUSIONS: From a general starting point, supervisors develop trust in residents informed by observation, inference and information gathered from the team and patients. Judgements of trust yield outcomes defined by supervisors' changing roles, the increasingly independent provision of care by residents, and team functioning. The implications of these findings for graded resident autonomy aligned with learning needs can inform the design of training environments to enable readiness for unsupervised practice.