Healthcare professionals' experiences of required competencies in mentoring of interprofessional students in clinical practice: A systematic review of qualitative studies.

AIM: To synthesize evidence on healthcare professionals' experiences of competencies in mentoring undergraduate healthcare, social care and medical students during their interprofessional clinical practice. DESIGN: This review was conducted by the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. METHODS: Studies were included if they were based on the phenomenon of interest and used qualitative or mixed methods (qualitative share). The included studies were critically appraised using the standardized JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist. Qualitative research findings were extracted and synthesized using the meta-aggregation approach. DATA SOURCES: Five databases (CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, Medic and ProQuest) were systematically searched from each database's inception on 28 June 2023. RESULTS: A total of 5164 studies were initially screened, and 25 were identified for inclusion in this review. Three synthesized findings were identified: competencies related to (1) preparing for and developing interprofessional clinical practice, (2) supporting the learning process in interprofessional clinical practice and (3) creating an interprofessional mentor identity. CONCLUSION: Although competent mentors are essential to implementing and developing interprofessional clinical practice, some mentors find interprofessional mentoring challenging. High-quality interprofessional mentoring requires specific competence that differs from profession-specific and individual mentoring. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: To ensure that interprofessional clinical practice is of high quality and strengthens students' professional and interprofessional growth, special attention should be given to mentors' interprofessional mentoring competence, and a range of opportunities and organizational structures should be provided for competence development. IMPACT: This systematic review provides insights into the specific competencies required for interprofessional mentoring. These findings can support healthcare professionals, educators and policymakers in developing interprofessional clinical practice and mentoring competence. REPORTING METHOD: This review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement and ENTREQ reporting guidelines. No patient or public contribution.

Effectiveness of mentoring education on health care professionals´ mentoring competence: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Different types of educational approaches are needed to build a mentor's competence in guiding students during clinical practice; this education should be provided in an interprofessional setting. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to evaluate how effective mentoring education interventions are at improving mentoring competence among health care professionals. DESIGN: A systematic review. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was conducted across five electronic databases: CINAHL, PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus, and Medic. The search did not have any time limitations and included original studies published in English, Finnish or Swedish. REVIEW METHODS: JBI critical appraisal tools for quasi-experimental studies and randomized controlled trials were used to assess the quality of the selected studies. The eligibility of potentially relevant studies was assessed by two independent researchers based on title, abstract, and full text, along with overall methodological quality. The study findings were synthesized using data tabulation and narrative analysis. RESULTS: A total of two randomized controlled trials and six quasi-experimental studies were included in the review. The described mentoring education interventions were carried out in university hospitals, central hospitals, tertiary care centers, and other health service settings. All of the described educational interventions involved the pedagogical method of blended learning, while three studies also involved web-based learning. The presented educational interventions included versatile pedagogical frameworks, e.g., interactive practical training sessions, teaching workshops, and technology-mediated interactions. One study contained a control group. CONCLUSION: This systematic review can provide insight and evidence-based that can be used to design effective mentoring education. Further research is needed and would ideally include randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies with reference groups; this type of research could further elucidate which aspects of mentoring education are most important for improving the guidance skills of health care professionals.

The dental healthcare professionals' competence in mentoring students in the clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate dentists', dental hygienists' and dental assistants' competence in mentoring students and to identify distinct mentor profiles. METHODS: The study employed a cross-sectional design. Data were collected using the Mentors' Competence Instrument (MCI), which includes 45 items structured under seven mentoring competence sub-dimensions. The data were collected during autumn 2017 from dentists, dental hygienists and dental assistants working in the Finnish primary healthcare (n = 1097) using a paper survey, whilst dentists (n = 26) who have completed mentoring education in one university completed an electronic questionnaire. Cases with more than 5% missing data (n = 164) were listwise deleted, whilst the remaining data (n = 933) underwent analysis. K-mean clustering was used to identify significantly different mentor profiles, whilst comparisons of mentoring competence between the identified profiles were performed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. RESULTS: Three distinct mentor profiles (A, B and C) that differed in the level of mentoring competence were identified. The participants in profile A encompassed mostly dental assistants, profile B included mostly dental assistants and dentists, and profile C mainly comprised dentists and dental assistants. Profiles A, B and C differed significantly in terms of education, job title, role of mentor and participation in mentoring education. The largest difference in competence was observed between participants of profiles A and C. Each profile differed significantly from the other two across all seven competence areas. Most of the participants had not previously received any mentoring education. CONCLUSION: There is room for improvement in the competence of dentistry student mentors, especially regarding knowledge of effective mentoring practices, goal-oriented mentoring, mentor characteristics and motivation for mentoring. Every mentor that works with oral healthcare students should receive mentoring training.