Limitations of medical student mentor programmes Scott Oliver, Lorna Gallacher, Kathleen Collins, Rosemary Haddock, Laura McAuley and Helen Taylor Department of Medical Education, NHS Lanarkshire, Glasgow, UK
W
e were interested to read the evaluation of a mentorship programme for medical students conducted by Hawkins et al.1 Our experience as clinical teaching fellows, and that of other authors,2 agrees with this study’s conclusions: mentoring can improve student engagement with educational opportunities during clinical attachments. This evaluation cannot, however, be considered to be representative of all participants’ experiences, as the authors acknowledge, because it is based upon the feedback of just 46 per cent of participants and 22 per cent of mentors.
consider these to be essential components of any educational programme. Confusion may also have arisen over mentors’ roles as both teachers and sources of pastoral support. Foundation year–1 doctors in particular (46% of mentors) might lack the professional perspective required to adequately fulfil these dual roles in just the second month of their postgraduate career. Anecdotally, we have observed similar role confusion when junior clinicians have been invited to provide near-peer supervision while also delivering ad–hoc education for senior medical students.
No governance arrangements were reported, and no mention was made of protected teaching time for mentors or students. We
We feel that formalising and standardising the roles of mentors, and timetabling protected teaching sessions, would provide
clarity for mentors and promote a higher quality of experience for all students. This might also reduce the degree of apparent disengagement seen in this study. Professional relationships between students and junior clinicians are often positive and beneficial to both parties. We wholeheartedly support the development of further near-peer mentoring schemes. REFERENCES 1.
Hawkins A, Jones K, Stanton A. A mentorship programme for final-year students. Clin Teach 2014;11:345–349.
2.
Rodrigues J, Sengupta A, Mitchell A, et al. The Southeast Scotland Foundation Doctor Teaching Programme – is “near-peer” teaching feasible, efficacious and sustainable on a regional scale? Med Teach 2009;31:e51–e57. doi: 10.1080/01421590802520915.
Corresponding author’s contact details: Scott W Oliver, Department of Medical Education, NHS Lanarkshire, Kirklands Hospital, Fallside Road, Bothwell, Glasgow, G71 8BB, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
doi: 10.1111/tct.12364
220 © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. THE CLINICAL TEACHER 2015; 12: 219–221
tct_12352.indd 220
5/13/2015 9:14:35 AM
W
e were interested to read the evaluation of a mentorship programme for medical students conducted by Hawkins et al.1 Our experience as clinical teaching fellows, and that of other authors,2 agrees with this study’s conclusions: mentoring can improve student engagement with educational opportunities during clinical attachments. This evaluation cannot, however, be considered to be representative of all participants’ experiences, as the authors acknowledge, because it is based upon the feedback of just 46 per cent of participants and 22 per cent of mentors.
consider these to be essential components of any educational programme. Confusion may also have arisen over mentors’ roles as both teachers and sources of pastoral support. Foundation year–1 doctors in particular (46% of mentors) might lack the professional perspective required to adequately fulfil these dual roles in just the second month of their postgraduate career. Anecdotally, we have observed similar role confusion when junior clinicians have been invited to provide near-peer supervision while also delivering ad–hoc education for senior medical students.
No governance arrangements were reported, and no mention was made of protected teaching time for mentors or students. We
We feel that formalising and standardising the roles of mentors, and timetabling protected teaching sessions, would provide
clarity for mentors and promote a higher quality of experience for all students. This might also reduce the degree of apparent disengagement seen in this study. Professional relationships between students and junior clinicians are often positive and beneficial to both parties. We wholeheartedly support the development of further near-peer mentoring schemes. REFERENCES 1.
Hawkins A, Jones K, Stanton A. A mentorship programme for final-year students. Clin Teach 2014;11:345–349.
2.
Rodrigues J, Sengupta A, Mitchell A, et al. The Southeast Scotland Foundation Doctor Teaching Programme – is “near-peer” teaching feasible, efficacious and sustainable on a regional scale? Med Teach 2009;31:e51–e57. doi: 10.1080/01421590802520915.
Corresponding author’s contact details: Scott W Oliver, Department of Medical Education, NHS Lanarkshire, Kirklands Hospital, Fallside Road, Bothwell, Glasgow, G71 8BB, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
doi: 10.1111/tct.12364
220 © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. THE CLINICAL TEACHER 2015; 12: 219–221
tct_12352.indd 220
5/13/2015 9:14:35 AM
