A systematic scoping review of ethical issues in mentoring in internal medicine, family medicine and academic medicine.

Mentoring's role in medical education is threatened by the potential abuse of mentoring relationships. Particularly affected are mentoring relationships between senior clinicians and junior doctors which lie at the heart of mentoring. To better understand and address these concerns, a systematic scoping review into prevailing accounts of ethical issues and professional lapses in mentoring is undertaken. Arksey and O'Malley's (Int J Soc Res Methodol 8(1):19-32, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616) methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews was employed to explore the scope of ethical concerns in mentoring in general medicine. Databases searcheed included PubMed, ScienceDirect, ERIC, Embase, Scopus, Mednar and OpenGrey. 3391 abstracts were identified from the initialy search after removal of duplicates, 412 full-text articles were reviewed, 98 articles were included and thematically analysed. Unsatisfactory matching, misaligned expectations, inadequate mentor training, cursory codes of conduct, sketchy standards of practice, meagre oversight and unstructured processes have been identified as potential causes for ethical and professional breaches in mentoring practice. Changes in how professionalism is viewed suggest further studies of educational culture should also be carried out. The host organization plays a major role in establishing codes of conduct, expectations, and holistically, longitudinally oversight of the mentoring process and mentoring relationships.

Structuring Mentoring in Medicine and Surgery. A Systematic Scoping Review of Mentoring Programs Between 2000 and 2019.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence of novice mentoring's successes in having senior clinicians support junior doctors and/or medical students in their clinical, academic, and research goals has spurred efforts to include mentoring in the core medical curriculum. However, lack of effective structuring threatens the viability of mentoring programs, precipitating ethical concerns about mentoring. This review aims to answer the question "what is known about mentoring structures in novice mentoring among medical students and junior doctors in medicine and surgery postings?," which will guide the design of a consistent structure to novice mentoring. METHODS: Levac (2010)'s framework was used to guide this systematic scoping review of mentoring programs in medicine and surgery published between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2019 in PubMed, ScienceDirect, ERIC, Embase, Scopus, Mednar, and OpenGrey. A "split approach" involving concurrent independent use of a directed content analysis and thematic approach was used to analyze included articles. RESULTS: Three thousand three hundred ninety-five abstracts were identified. There was concordance between the 3 themes and categories identified in analyzing the 71 included articles. These were the host organization, mentoring stages, and evaluations. CONCLUSION: The data reveal the need for balance between ensuring consistency and flexibility to meet the individual needs of stakeholders throughout the stages of the mentoring process. The Generic Mentoring Framework provides a structured approach to "balancing" flexibility and consistency in mentoring processes. The Generic Mentoring Framework is reliant upon appropriate, holistic, and longitudinal assessments of the mentoring process to guide adaptations to mentoring processes and ensure effective support and oversight of the program.

A Systematic Scoping Review of Ethical Issues in Mentoring in Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Mentoring is crucial to the growth and development of mentors, mentees, and host organisations. Yet, the process of mentoring in surgery is poorly understood and increasingly mired in ethical concerns that compromise the quality of mentorship and prevent mentors, mentees, and host organisations from maximising its full potential. A systematic scoping review was undertaken to map the ethical issues in surgical mentoring to enhance understanding, assessment, and guidance on ethical conduct. METHODS: Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework was used to guide a systematic scoping review involving articles published between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2018 in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ERIC, ScienceDirect, Mednar, and OpenGrey databases. Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis approach was adopted to compare ethical issues in surgical mentoring across different settings, mentee and mentor populations, and host organisations. RESULTS: A total of 3849 abstracts were identified, 464 full-text articles were retrieved, and 50 articles were included. The 3 themes concerned ethical lapses at the levels of mentor or mentee, mentoring relationships, and host organisation. CONCLUSIONS: Mentoring abuse in surgery involves lapses in conduct, understanding of roles and responsibilities, poor alignment of expectations, and a lack of clear standards of practice. It is only with better structuring of mentoring processes and effective support of host organisation tasked with providing timely, longitudinal, and holistic assessment and oversight will surgical mentoring overcome prevailing ethical concerns surrounding it.