A National Survey of Mentoring Programs for KL2 Scholars

There is limited information on how academic institutions support effective mentoring practices for new investigators. A national semistructured telephone interview was conducted to assess current “state of the art” mentoring practices for KL2 scholars among the 46 institutions participating in the Clinical Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium. Mentoring practices examined included: mentor selection, articulating and aligning expectations, assessing the mentoring relationship, and mentor training. Telephone interviews were conducted in winter/fall 2009, with 100% of the CTSAs funded (n= 46) through 2009, participating in the survey. Primary findings include: five programs selected mentors for K scholars, 14 programs used mentor contracts to define expectations, 16 programs reported formal mentor evaluation, 10 offered financial incentives to mentors, and 13 offered formal mentoring training. The interviews found considerable variation in mentoring practices for training new investigators among the 46 CTSAs. There was also limited consensus on “what works” and what are the core elements of “effective mentoring practices. Empirical research is needed to help research leaders decide on where and how to place resources related to mentoring. Clin Trans Sci 2010; Volume 3: 299–304     

Identifying and aligning expectations in a mentoring relationship

The mentoring relationship between a scholar and their primary mentor is a core feature of research training. Anecdotal evidence suggests this relationship is adversely affected when scholar and mentor expectations are not aligned. We examined three questions: (1) What is the value in assuring that the expectations of scholars and mentors are mutually identified and aligned? (2) What types of programmatic interventions facilitate this process? (3) What types of expectations are important to identify and align? We addressed these questions through a systematic literature review, focus group interviews of mentors and scholars, a survey of Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) KL2 program directors, and review of formal programmatic mechanisms used by KL2 programs. We found broad support for the importance of identifying and aligning the expectations of scholars and mentors and evidence that mentoring contracts, agreements, and training programs facilitate this process. These tools focus on aligning expectations with respect to the scholar's research, education, professional development and career advancement as well as support, communication, and personal conduct and interpersonal relations. Research is needed to assess test the efficacy of formal alignment activities.     

Evaluating and Giving Feedback to Mentors: New Evidence‐Based Approaches

A comprehensive mentoring program includes a variety of components. One of the most important is the ongoing assessment of and feedback to mentors. Scholars need strong active mentors who have the expertise, disposition, motivation, skills, and the ability to accept feedback and to adjust their mentoring style. Assessing the effectiveness of a given mentor is no easy task. Variability in learning needs and academic goals among scholars makes it difficult to develop a single evaluation instrument or a standardized procedure for evaluating mentors. Scholars, mentors, and program leaders are often reluctant to conduct formal evaluations, as there are no commonly accepted measures. The process of giving feedback is often difficult and there is limited empirical data on efficacy. This article presents a new and innovative six‐component approach to mentor evaluation that includes the assessment of mentee training and empowerment, peer learning and mentor training, scholar advocacy, mentee–mentor expectations, mentor self‐reflection, and mentee evaluation of their mentor. Clin Trans Sci 2012; Volume 5: 71–77     

Mentoring K scholars: strategies to support research mentors

The goal of this paper is to present strategies utilized to support K scholar research mentors. K scholars are generally assistant professors who are close to developing independent research programs. Of all the various types of mentees, K scholars offer the greatest challenges, as well as the greatest rewards, for research mentors. To see one's mentee achieve independent PI status and become an established investigator is one of the great joys of being a research mentor. Research mentors for K scholars, however, may not directly benefit from their mentoring relationship, neither in terms of obtaining data to support their research program or laboratory, nor in assistance with grants or scientific papers. There is a pressing need for the research community to address the workload, institutional expectations, and reward system for research mentors. The dearth of research mentors and role models in clinical translational science parallels the decreasing number of physicians choosing careers in clinical research. While there is limited empirical information on the effectiveness of mentor support mechanisms, this white paper concludes that providing mentor support is critical to expanding the available pool of mentors, as well as providing training opportunities for K scholars.     

Evaluating research mentors working in the area of clinical translational science: a review of the literature

The goal of this paper is to review the evaluation of mentors with a focus on training new investigators in clinical translational science. These scholars include physicians and Ph.D. scientists who are generally assistant professors in clinical departments. This white paper is one of a series of articles focused on the programmatic elements of effective mentoring practices and the "current state of the art." Evaluating mentor performance and providing formative feedback can lead to stronger mentoring and ultimately lead to increased success of new clinical and translational investigators. While there is general agreement that mentor evaluation can be helpful, the process is difficult. Trainees are reluctant to share negative experiences and to rate their mentors. Mentors are not sure they want to be evaluated. Program leaders are not sure how to effectively use the information. This white paper provides mentees, mentors, and program leaders with new perspectives on mentor evaluation and ideas for future research.     

An evaluation study of a mentoring program to increase the diversity of the nursing workforce

Focus group methodology was used to evaluate faculty mentors (n = 10) and student mentees (n = 30) perceptions of a formal mentoring program. Prior to implementing the mentoring program, faculty preparation involved cultural competence and mentor workshops. Overall, both mentors and mentees had positive perceptions of the program. Three themes emerged from each group. The mentor themes were role modeling, caring and academic success and the mentee themes were support system, enhanced perceptions of the nursing profession, and academic enrichment. In addition, there were similarities between the mentors and the mentees when asked what constituted a good mentor and a good mentee.     

Mentoring in Radiologic Science

Mentoring occurs every day in the workplace, as experienced employees (mentors) help guide inexperienced ones (protégés) toward a common goal. Both the mentor and protégé possess hallmark characteristics that contribute to a successful mentorship. The typology of mentoring includes formal versus informal, as well as group, one-on-one, peer, remote, and invisible mentors. The benefits of these mentorships can impact students, inexperienced employees, health care institutions, education institutions, patient care, and the mentors themselves. Finally, there are recommendations for fostering mentoring for educators and managers.     

A Research Mentor Training Curriculum for Clinical and Translational Researchers

Purpose

To design and evaluate a research mentor training curriculum for clinical and translational researchers. The resulting 8‐hour curriculum was implemented as part of a national mentor training trial.

Method

The mentor training curriculum was implemented with 144 mentors at 16 academic institutions. Facilitators of the curriculum participated in a train‐the‐trainer workshop to ensure uniform delivery. The data used for this report were collected from participants during the training sessions through reflective writing, and following the last training session via confidential survey with a 94% response rate.

Results

A total of 88% of respondents reported high levels of satisfaction with the training experience, and 90% noted they would recommend the training to a colleague. Participants also reported significant learning gains across six mentoring competencies as well as specific impacts of the training on their mentoring practice.

Conclusions

The data suggest the described research mentor training curriculum is an effective means of engaging research mentors to reflect upon and improve their research mentoring practices. The training resulted in high satisfaction, self‐reported skill gains as well as behavioral changes of clinical and translational research mentors. Given success across 16 diverse sites, this training may serve as a national model. Clin Trans Sci 2013; Volume 6: 26–33     

Training the Next Generation of Research Mentors: The University of California,San Francisco,Clinical & Translational Science Institute Mentor Development Program

Mentoring is a critical component of career development and success for clinical translational science research faculty. Yet few programs train faculty in mentoring skills. We describe outcomes from the first two faculty cohorts who completed a Mentor Development Program (MDP) at UCSF. Eligibility includes having dedicated research time, expertise in a scientific area and a desire to be a lead research mentor. A post‐MDP survey measured the program''s impact on enhancement of five key mentoring skills, change in the Mentors‐in‐Training (MIT) self‐rated importance of being a mentor to their career satisfaction, and overall confidence in their mentoring skills. Since 2007, 29 MITs participated in and 26 completed the MDP. Only 15% of the MITs reported any previous mentor training. Overall, 96% of MITs felt that participation in the MDP helped them to become better mentors. A majority reported a significant increase in confidence in mentoring skills and most reported an increased understanding of important mentoring issues at UCSF. MITs reported increased confidence in overall and specific mentoring skills after completion of the MDP. The MDP can serve as a model for other institutions to develop the next generation of clinical‐translational research mentors.     

Nurse Engagement and Contributions to the Clinical and Translational Science Awards Initiative

CTSAs are mandated to follow a multidisciplinary model. Requests for applications direct responsive applications to “integrate clinical and translational science across multiple departments, schools,” listing disciplines in addition to medicine such as engineering, nursing, and public health. This inventory of nurse engagement in CTSAs describes the extent of nursing''s CTSA engagement from the perspective of participating nurse scientists within individual CTSAs, including institutional/national contributions and best practices that foster a multidisciplinary model. Of the 50 CTSAs affiliated with a nursing school, 44 responded (88% response rate). Of the ten CTSAs not affiliated with a nursing school, four responded (40% response rate). Overall funding success rates of nurse applicants are: TL1 fellowships 81%, KL2 fellowships 54%, and nurse‐led pilots 58%. At most CTSAs nursing is contributing to the accomplishment of the CTSA mandate. The strongest categories of contribution are community engagement, implementation science, and training. Best practices to enhance multidisciplinary collaboration are: (1) inclusion of multiple disciplines on key committees who meet regularly to guide individual core and overall CTSA strategic planning and implementation; (2) required multidisciplinary co‐mentors (ideally from different schools within the CTSA) on training grants and as co‐investigators on pilot projects; and (3) documentation of multidisciplinary activity in annual reports.     

From the perspective of new nurses: what do effective mentors look like in practice?

New nurses entering practice experience a challenging transition, one that can be moderated by the presence of mentors in the practice setting. Seeking mentors who enter into informal mentoring relationships with new nurses can be difficult for those new nurses who don't know what to look for in a mentor. In this Grounded Theory study, the author explored nurses' perspectives on what makes a mentor effective, and how they engaged in mentoring relationships with their informal mentors. Two key factors in the development of these mentoring relationships was 1) the relational connection that existed between new nurses and one of their more experienced colleagues in the practice setting, and 2) the perception of new nurses of the quality of the experienced nurses' practices. New nurses entered practice expecting to learn from their more experienced colleagues but recognized that they wanted to emulate the practice of experienced nurses who practiced nursing in the way new nurses idealized. In this article, the author describes the characteristics of effective mentors, from the perspectives of nurses who had mentors, and described their processes of engaging with their mentors.     

Mentoring in Clinical‐Translational Research: A Study of Participants in Master's Degree Programs

Research projects in translational science are increasingly complex and require interdisciplinary collaborations. In the context of training translational researchers, this suggests that multiple mentors may be needed in different content areas. This study explored mentoring structure as it relates to perceived mentoring effectiveness and other characteristics of master''s‐level trainees in clinical‐translational research training programs. A cross‐sectional online survey of recent graduates of clinical research master''s program was conducted. Of 73 surveys distributed, 56.2% (n = 41) complete responses were analyzed. Trainees were overwhelmingly positive about participation in their master''s programs and the impact it had on their professional development. Overall the majority (≥75%) of trainees perceived they had effective mentoring in terms of developing skills needed for conducting clinical‐translational research. Fewer trainees perceived effective mentoring in career development and work‐life balance. In all 15 areas of mentoring effectiveness assessed, higher rates of perceived mentor effectiveness was seen among trainees with ≥2 mentors compared to those with solo mentoring (SM). In addition, trainees with ≥2 mentors perceived having effective mentoring in more mentoring aspects (median: 14.0; IQR: 12.0–15.0) than trainees with SM (median: 10.5; IQR: 8.0–14.5). Results from this survey suggest having ≥2 mentors may be beneficial in fulfilling trainee expectations for mentoring in clinical‐translational training.     

Mentor Training within Academic Health Centers with Clinical and Translational Science Awards

Multiple studies highlight the benefits of effective mentoring in academic medicine. Thus, we sought to quantify and characterize the mentoring practices at academic health centers (AHCs) with Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA). Here we report findings pertaining specifically to mentor training at the level of the KL2 mentored award program, and at the broader institutional level. We found only four AHCs did not provide any form of training. One‐time orientation was most prevalent at the KL2 level, whereas formal face‐to‐face training was most prevalent at the institutional level. Despite differences in format usage, there was general consensus at both the KL2 and institutional level about the topics of focus of face‐to‐face training sessions. Lower‐resource training formats utilized at the KL2 level may reveal a preference for preselection of qualified mentors, while institutional selection of resource‐heavy formats may be an attempt to raise the mentoring qualifications of the academic community as a whole. The present work fits into the expanding landscape of academic mentoring literature and sets the framework for future longitudinal, outcome studies focused on identifying the most efficient strategies to develop effective mentors.     

The value of nurse mentoring relationships: Lessons learnt from a work‐based resilience enhancement programme for nurses working in the forensic setting

This study aimed to evaluate a mentoring programme embedded in a work‐based personal resilience enhancement intervention for forensic nurses. This qualitative study formed part of a wider mixed‐methods study that aimed to implement and evaluate the intervention. Twenty‐four semistructured interviews were carried out with forensic nurse mentees and senior nurse mentors; these explored their experiences of the mentoring programme and any benefits and challenges involved in constructing and maintaining a mentor–mentee relationship. Qualitative data were analysed thematically using the Framework Method. Four key themes relating to the initiation and maintenance of mentor–mentee relationships were identified: finding time and space to arrange mentoring sessions; building rapport and developing the relationship; setting expectations of the mentoring relationship and the commitment required; and the impact of the mentoring relationship for both mentees and mentors. Study findings highlight the benefits of senior nurses mentoring junior staff and provide evidence to support the integration of mentoring programmes within wider work‐based resilience enhancement interventions. Effective mentoring can lead to the expansion of professional networks, career development opportunities, increased confidence and competence at problem‐solving, and higher levels of resilience, well‐being, and self‐confidence.     

Current mentorship schemes might be doing our students a disservice

This paper reports on a multi-professional research study, which aimed to explore mentee and mentor perceptions of the mentorship role within nursing, midwifery and medicine. The specific focus of the study was on the conceptualisation of mentoring within the health setting, the factors that influence the mentor-mentee relationship in a positive/negative way, what the professional and personal needs of the mentees are and what are the training and development needs of mentors. This paper will focus on the nursing responses from both questionnaire and interview data highlighted by the responses from the other healthcare professions. The changing nature of the role may be preventing mentors from providing adequate support to students, this is especially relevant in view of the recent concentration on failing students and ensuring trainees are fit for practice at the point of registration. Additionally data suggests that nurse mentors are struggling to fulfil the role with minimal formal support from their work environment, in contrast to other professions.     

Evaluation of a pilot mentoring programme for nurse managers

BACKGROUND: The Institute of Nursing Executives is a professional organization with a membership of approximately 150 Australian nurse managers and administrators. Members of rural zones were concerned by the lack of support available to new managers working in isolated areas and sought to develop a mentoring programme that would establish both professional development and support networks for these managers. A pilot programme was developed for two rural areas of New South Wales and one metropolitan site (the city of Sydney). AIM: The evaluation reported here aimed to determine participant expectations of mentoring and outcomes of the pilot programme. METHOD: The programme included matching and self-selection of mentor and mentee roles and attendance at a full-day Mentoring Workshop. The programme was evaluated by voluntary and anonymous pre- and postworkshop questionnaires sent to all participants, and postworkshop telephone interviews. RESULTS: Thirty-seven participants (79% of those enrolled in workshop) responded to the preworkshop questionnaire (20 identifying as mentees; 17 as mentors). Findings reiterated the lack of professional support and access for rural/remote area nurse managers and illustrated that new nurse managers lacked confidence in coaching and stimulating staff. Expectations of both mentors and mentees were similar in valuing a confidential, on-going mentoring relationship. Postworkshop questionnaires (n = 16) and telephone interviews (n = 11) highlighted issues about personal choice and timing, expectations of a structured programme and making greater use of existing technology to support and maintain networks. CONCLUSION: The pilot mentoring programme was highly successful in identifying strategies for the development of a tailored and sustainable programme for newly appointed nurse managers. Provision of a highly structured and facilitated programme carries high expectations of continued external support. Nurse managers also expressed a desire to choose when, how and whom they would select as mentors. Suggestions for the future included a greater use of technology to facilitate e-mail and internet-based discussion groups and mentor support.     

Outcomes of selected cases from the American Occupational Therapy Foundation's curriculum mentoring project.

This study investigated the outcomes of a yearlong formal curriculum-mentoring project sponsored by the American Occupational Therapy Foundation. Five occupational therapy faculty groups were selected through a competitive application process and paired with mentors to assist in curriculum change. The experiences of each of the teams were studied using multiple methods of data collection, including semistructured interviews conducted in person and via telephone, a mailed questionnaire, and bimonthly electronic journal entries. The process and outcomes of two representative cases are reported in this qualitative, critical case study analysis. Overall, the faculty groups in each of the two teams seemed to benefit from mentoring in differing degrees as a result of their participation in this curriculum mentoring project. An important finding was that a well-focused mentoring plan with clearly outlined expectations needs to be established at the onset of any formal mentoring project. Additionally, a systematic, strategic plan agreed on by both mentors and participants, with a clear outline of responsibilities, will enhance the outcomes of a mentoring relationship.