Combining Support and Assessment in Health Professions Education: Mentors' and Mentees' Experiences in a Programmatic Assessment Context.

Introduction: Mentors in programmatic assessment support mentees with low-stakes feedback, which often also serves as input for high-stakes decision making. That process potentially causes tensions in the mentor-mentee relationship. This study explored how undergraduate mentors and mentees in health professions education experience combining developmental support and assessment, and what this means for their relationship. Methods: The authors chose a pragmatic qualitative research approach and conducted semi-structured vignette-based interviews with 24 mentors and 11 mentees that included learners from medicine and the biomedical sciences. Data were analyzed thematically. Results: How participants combined developmental support and assessment varied. In some mentor-mentee relationships it worked well, in others it caused tensions. Tensions were also created by unintended consequences of design decisions at the program level. Dimensions impacted by experienced tensions were: relationship quality, dependence, trust, and nature and focus of mentoring conversations. Mentors and mentees mentioned applying various strategies to alleviate tensions: transparency and expectation management, distinguishing between developmental support and assessment, and justifying assessment responsibility. Discussion: Combining the responsibility for developmental support and assessment within an individual worked well in some mentor-mentee relationships, but caused tensions in others. On the program level, clear decisions should be made regarding the design of programmatic assessment: what is the program of assessment and how are responsibilities divided between all involved? If tensions arise, mentors and mentees can try to alleviate these, but continuous mutual calibration of expectations between mentors and mentees remains of key importance.

Mentoring is in the 'I' of the beholder: supporting mentors in reflecting on their actual and preferred way of mentoring.

BACKGROUND: An important strategy to support the professional development of mentors in health professions education is to encourage critical reflection on what they do, why they do it, and how they do it. Not only the 'how' of mentoring should be covered, but also the implicit knowledge and beliefs fundamental to the mentoring practice (a mentor's personal interpretative framework). This study analyzed the extent to which mentors perceive a difference between how they actually mentor and how they prefer to mentor. METHODS: The MERIT (MEntor Reflection InstrumenT) survey (distributed in 2020, N = 228), was used to ask mentors about the how, what, and why of their mentoring in two response modes: (1) regarding their actual mentoring practice and (2) regarding their preferred mentoring practice. With an analysis of covariance, it was explored whether potential discrepancies between these responses were influenced by experience, profession of the mentor, and curriculum-bound assessment requirements. RESULTS: The averaged total MERIT score and averaged scores for the subscales 'Supporting Personal Development' and 'Monitoring Performance' were significantly higher for preferred than for actual mentoring. In addition, mentors' experience interacted significantly with these scores, such that the difference between actual and preferred scores became smaller with more years of experience. CONCLUSIONS: Mentors can reflect on their actual and preferred approach to mentoring. This analysis and the potential discrepancy between actual and preferred mentoring can serve as input for individual professional development trajectories.

MERIT: a mentor reflection instrument for identifying the personal interpretative framework.

BACKGROUND: Essential to the professional development of mentors is making explicit and critically challenging the knowledge and beliefs underpinning their mentoring practice. This paper reports on the development of a survey instrument called MERIT, MEntor Reflection InstrumenT, which was designed to support mentors' systematic reflection on the how, what and why of their practice. METHODS: In 2019, a twenty-item survey instrument was developed and piloted. Initial validation data (N = 228) were collected by distributing the survey through the authors' network. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted and internal consistency reliability coefficients were calculated. RESULTS: The Principal Axis EFA with Direct Oblimin rotation (Delta = 0) resulted in four factors: 1) supporting personal development, 2) modelling professional development, 3) fostering autonomy, and 4) monitoring performance. The four factors explained 43% of the total variance of item scores. The Cronbach's alphas for the subscale scores were between .42 and .75. CONCLUSIONS: The MERIT can help mentors reflect on their beliefs and professional knowhow. These reflections can serve as input for the faculty development initiatives mentors undertake, which may ultimately improve their knowledge and skills as a mentor.

Residents' identification of learning moments and subsequent reflection: impact of peers, supervisors, and patients.

BACKGROUND: The clinical workplace offers residents many opportunities for learning. Reflection on workplace experiences drives learning and development because experiences potentially make residents reconsider existing knowledge, action repertoires and beliefs. As reflective learning in the workplace cannot be taken for granted, we aimed to gain a better insight into the process of why residents identify experiences as learning moments, and how residents reflect on these moments. METHODS: This study draws on semi-structured interviews with 33 medical residents. Interviews explored how residents identified learning moments and how they reflected on such moments, both in-action and on-action. Aiming for extensive explanations on the process of reflection, open-ended questions were used that built on and deepened residents' answers. After interviews were transcribed verbatim, a within-case and cross-case analysis was conducted to build a general pattern of explanation. RESULTS: The data analysis yielded understanding of the crucial role of the social context. Interactions with peers, supervisors, and patients drive reflection, because residents want to measure up to their peers, meet supervisors' standards, and offer the best patient care. Conversely, quality and depth of reflection sometimes suffer, because residents prioritize patient care over learning. This urges them to seek immediate solutions or ask their peers or supervisor for advice, rather than reflectively deal with a learning moment themselves. Peer discussions potentially enhance deep reflection, while own supervisor involvement sometimes feels unsafe. DISCUSSION: Our results adds to our understanding of the social-constructivist nature of reflection. We suggest that feelings of self-preservation during interactions with peers and supervisors in a highly demanding work environment shape reflection. Support from peers or supervisors helps residents to instantly deal with learning moments more easily, but it also makes them more dependent on others for learning. Since residents' devotion to patient care obscures the reflection process, residents need more dedicated time to reflect. Moreover, to elaborate deeply on learning moments, a supportive and safe learning climate with peers and supervisors is recommended.

Mentors' Beliefs About Their Roles in Health Care Education: A Qualitative Study of Mentors' Personal Interpretative Framework.

PURPOSE: How mentors shape their mentoring is strongly influenced by their personal beliefs about the goals and purpose of mentoring, the possible activities associated with it, who decides on the focus of the mentoring relationship, and the strategies mentors choose to enact these beliefs in practice. In accordance with the personal interpretative framework, the authors operationalized mentors' beliefs as professional self-understanding (the what) and subjective educational theory (the how) of teaching and sought to identify different mentoring positions. METHOD: Using a qualitative approach, the authors conducted semistructured interviews between December 2017 and January 2018 with 18 undergraduate mentors from Maastricht University in Maastricht, the Netherlands. The aim of the interviews was to reconstruct their personal interpretative framework. Before building a general pattern of explanation in a cross-case analysis, the authors performed a within-case analysis of the data, analyzing individual mentors. RESULTS: This approach resulted in the identification and description of 4 mentoring positions: the (1) facilitator (service providing and responsive), (2) coach (development supporting and responsive), (3) monitor (signaling and collaborative), and (4) exemplar (service providing or development supporting and directive). Each position represents a coherent pattern of normative beliefs about oneself as a mentor (professional self-understanding) and how to enact these beliefs in practice (subjective educational theory). CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of their mentoring position can help mentors understand why they act the way they do in certain situations and how this behavior affects their mentees' learning and development. It can also help mentors identify personal learning needs and, consequently, provide opportunities for faculty development.