Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
1.
PLoS One ; 15(6): e0234322, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32502180

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: An acute shortage of senior mentors saw the Palliative Medicine Initiative (PMI) combine its novice mentoring program with electronic and peer mentoring to overcome insufficient mentoring support of medical students and junior doctors by senior clinicians. A three-phased evaluation was carried out to evaluate mentees' experiences within the new CNEP mentoring program. METHODS: Phase 1 saw use of a Delphi process to create a content-valid questionnaire from data drawn from 9 systematic reviews of key aspects of novice mentoring. In Phase 2 Cognitive Interviews were used to evaluate the tool. The tool was then piloted amongst mentees in the CNEP program. Phase 3 compared mentee's experiences in the CNEP program with those from the PMI's novice mentoring program. RESULTS: Thematic analysis of open-ended responses revealed three themes-the CNEP mentoring process, its benefits and challenges that expound on the descriptive statistical analysis of specific close-ended and Likert scale responses of the survey. The results show mentee experiences in the PMI's novice mentoring program and the CNEP program to be similar and that the addition of near peer and e-mentoring processes enhance communications and support of mentees. CONCLUSION: CNEP mentoring is an evolved form of novice mentoring built on a consistent mentoring approach supported by an effective host organization. The host organization marshals assessment, support and oversight of the program and allows flexibility within the approach to meet the particular needs of mentees, mentors and senior mentors. Whilst near-peer mentors and e-mentoring can make up for the lack of senior mentor availability, their effectiveness hinges upon a common mentoring approach. To better support the CNEP program deeper understanding of the mentoring dynamics, policing and mentor and mentee training processes are required. The CNEP mentoring tool too needs to be validated.


Assuntos
Educação Médica/métodos , Tutoria/métodos , Mentores/educação , Adulto , Comunicação , Feminino , Humanos , Relações Interprofissionais , Masculino , Corpo Clínico Hospitalar , Tutoria/organização & administração , Mentores/psicologia , Medicina Paliativa , Avaliação de Programas e Projetos de Saúde , Singapura , Estudantes de Medicina , Inquéritos e Questionários , Adulto Jovem
2.
PLoS One ; 15(5): e0232511, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32384090

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Medicina Interna/educação , Tutoria , Mentores , Avaliação Educacional/métodos , Humanos
3.
J Palliat Med ; 18(6): 506-12, 2015 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25719737

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In 2007, the Care of the Dying clinical coordinated Pathway (CDP) was adapted from the United Kingdom Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) and implemented in a tertiary hospital in Singapore to improve care in oncology and subsequently renal patients. With concerns about its use after the Neuberger review, an audit of patients on the CDP was performed to determine if the use of such a pathway should be continued locally. METHODS: A two-year retrospective audit of CDP use was conducted. Aspects of communication, initiation of CDP, patient monitoring, medications, nutrition, and hydration were assessed. RESULTS: In the 111 patient records reviewed, there were documented extent of care discussions with 94% of caregivers and 29% of patients before CDP initiation. Of the 88% of CDPs initiated within office hours, 90% fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All patients were monitored at least every eight hours. Seventy-three patients (66%) were prescribed opioids or sedatives and subsequently monitored appropriately, albeit 56% had no documented prior discussion with caregivers regarding medication use. Indications for opioid use were documented for all patients and only one patient had documentation of excessive sedation. Oral feeding and parenteral hydration were continued in 85% and 74% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: There was no documented compromise in medication safety, clinical monitoring, and provision of nutrition and hydration for patients on the CDP. However, documentation of important end-of-life decisions and conversations remain poor. Development of an alternative care tool encouraging systematic discussion and documentation of individualized end-of-life care plans should be considered.


Assuntos
Procedimentos Clínicos/normas , Nefropatias/mortalidade , Neoplasias/mortalidade , Assistência Terminal/normas , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Comunicação , Tomada de Decisões , Feminino , Indicadores Básicos de Saúde , Mortalidade Hospitalar , Hospitais Públicos , Humanos , Masculino , Auditoria Médica , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Singapura/epidemiologia , Reino Unido
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA