Background:
Medical residency training is a challenging period when residents make important decisions that steer the direction of their careers. It can be difficult to determine which experiences serve as validation of career goals and which experiences aid in personal growth. Mentoring relationships have often served the function of providing personalized guidance and support to individuals in these learning contexts. Although studies on formal mentoring relationships have encompassed numerous professional contexts, few have examined components of compatibility between medical trainees and professionals and their effect on the success of the mentoring relationship. This is the aim of our study.
Purpose:
The current initiative aimed to develop a multidimensional matching process using components of compatibility based on demographics and personal preferences to pair combined internal medicine and pediatrics (Med‐Peds) residents with similarly trained attending physicians. We assessed relationship outcomes associated with the matching process to determine the role of compatibility in realizing mentoring benefits.
Description:
Outcomes of a structured mentor program that paired one Med‐Peds resident (nResident=19) with one attending physician (nMentor=19) were compared to those of a class based mentor program (1 mentor paired with 8‐10 residents; nClass=17). Enrolled residents and volunteer mentors were given a survey that assessed demographics, personal interests, values, and professional goals. All mentors were Med‐Peds trained despite representing different professional specialties. We derived compatibility scores from a combination of weighted survey responses and randomly assigned trainees to either a matched or unmatched group to test the role of compatibility in mentoring outcomes. The matched group (nMatched=10) paired residents with the corresponding mentor who received the highest compatibility score. The unmatched group (nUnmatched=9) randomly paired residents with the remaining mentors regardless of compatibility score. Mentors and residents were kept blind of their assignments and the purpose and expectations of the program were explained to all participants. We administered a program evaluation survey after one year to assess differences in relationship outcomes. Results of a series of z‐tests for proportions showed supportive, yet non‐significant trends in resident outcomes for matched mentor pairs compared to class based and unmatched pairs. Data were not sufficient to assess differences in mentor outcomes.
Conclusions:
Matching residents with mentors provides a foundation of compatibility that can facilitate stronger more fulfilling mentoring relationships. We continue to enroll new residents and mentors (nResident=29) to further investigate the role of compatibility in mentoring outcomes. Future steps include targeted education to develop mentoring skill sets as well as to ensure that mentees are receptive to mentor guidance.