xRead - Mentorship in Otolaryngology Trainees (March 2026)

15314995, 2013, 8, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lary.24043 by Lyndy Wilcox , Wiley Online Library on [14/12/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

surgical training programs. The breadth of formal mentor ship can include research mentorship, career planning/de velopment, counseling on the development of interpersonal skills, and guidance on work-life issues. The definition used by Ronald A. Berk et al. 4 appropriately elucidates the aspects and particularities involved in a mentoring rela tionship; the mentor is generally perceived as a role model who assists in the emotional, psychological, and professio nal development of the mentee. On both professional and personal platforms, the influence of formal mentorship for mentor and mentee is acknowledged as positive and beneficial. 5 In surgical residencies there is a genuine need for a positive mentoring relationship to facilitate residents’ learning of procedures, techniques, and the general craft of surgery from their faculty mentors. 6,7 With a para digm shift from the apprenticeship model of surgical training to a more learner-centered model, an appreci ably greater amount of research is being conducted to maximize the effectiveness of mentorship experiences. 8 Buddeberg-Fischer and Herta found that between the years 1981–1990 there were 335 research publications regarding mentorship listed in the Medline database, while in 2001 alone there were 391 publications. 6 This underscores the increased focus on mentoring relation ships. There has not, however, been a similar increase in the implementation of formal mentoring programs. 9 Providing effective mentorship has become increas ingly challenging due to work-hour restrictions that have limited the time available for formal and informal mentorship. 5 Previous studies show that although resi dents highly rank the value of mentorship, they are unsatisfied with the mentorship experience provided to them during their residencies. 7 In a recent survey of oto laryngology chief residents, 63% of respondents reported that the mentorship they received in their residency influenced their career decisions. The study also showed variability in the quality of the mentorship experience. 10 The purpose of our study is to survey and compare the faculty’s and trainees’ perceptions of their mentorship experience in otolaryngology training programs, and to identify areas in which improvements may yield more productive mentorship relationships. To our knowledge, this is the only study that directly compares faculty and resident opinions of their mentorship experiences in otolaryngology training pro grams. Specifically, this study compares the areas that faculty feel they need improvement in mentoring to the areas with which mentees are unsatisfied. Identifying strengths and weaknesses that are consistent from the mentor and mentee perspective is important in the de velopment and refinement of mentorship programs. MATERIALS AND METHODS A questionnaire was designed to survey residents/fellows and faculty of otolaryngology residency programs at Johns Hop kins University (JHU), University of North Carolina (UNC), and Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW). These sites were selected because the programs are medium- to large-sized oto laryngology programs in geographically distinct areas of the United States, and no sites were excluded due to type of men

TABLE I. Response Rate Within Individual Institutions.

JHU

MCW

UNC

Resident/Fellows

86% 84%

56% 84%

64% 40%

Faculty

torship program. After approval from the institutional review board, a participation request was sent electronically via Survey Monkey (Palo Alto, CA) to 76 faculty mentors (37 from JHU, 20 from UNC, and 19 from MCW) and 70 resident and fellow mentees (32 from JHU, 22 from UNC, and 16 from MCW). Residents were asked a total of 20 survey questions, 12 of which were scaled using a 5-level Likert item scale (Appendix A). The other eight provided demographics and background on the residents and their mentoring relationships. In a separate survey consisting of 13 questions, faculty were asked to describe their mentorship relationship, whether they have the appropri ate resources to provide effective mentorship, and to identify areas in which further training would improve their mentoring skills (Appendix B). The surveys were sent to participants via e-mail with writ ten directions regarding survey completion. Participants were assured of the anonymity of their responses and response data were deidentified. Nonrespondents were e-mailed reminders requesting their completion of the survey. Data was collected from May 2011 through June 2012, and was analyzed with STATA 10.0 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX), using Chi squared and Fischer Exact Tests. P values less than 0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS The response rate was 72% among residents/fel lows, and 73% of faculty responded (Table I). The train ees who responded consisted of 44 Residents and four fellows, with 90% identifying a formal mentor (in which the relationship with the mentee has a defined schedule, clear goals, and organizational support) who is a faculty member of their training program. The analysis was undertaken only for those trainees who identified a fac ulty mentor. Of the 61 faculty members that responded to the survey, 57 (93%) reported that they provide men torship to residents. Data was reported in three catego ries: positive response ( Strongly Agree and Agree categories), negative response ( Strongly Disagree and Disagree), and neutral. The majority of mentees (90%) reported meeting with their mentors twice or more yearly (Table II). Mentees most commonly reported meeting twice a year (42%) with mentors. Of those mentees who selected “other” rather than selecting a specific option, several described that they formally meet their mentor only twice, but had informal encounters on a weekly basis. Mentors most commonly marked “other” (42%) for fre quency of mentorship sessions; a recurring theme in the comments was that meetings were variable and many times depend on the progress of ongoing research proj ects, or are simply done on an as needed basis. While 95% of mentees agreed that their mentor is accessible, only 46% of faculty believed they had enough time to dedicate to mentoring ( P < 0.001).

Laryngoscope 123: August 2013

Lin et al.: Otolaryngology Training Mentorship 1877