Developing an advisor program for psychiatry residents

Outcomes of mentoring programs in psychiatry training: a literature review

OBJECTIVES

This literature review aimed to outline the evidence regarding the outcomes of formal mentoring programs for training psychiatrists.

METHODS

An electronic search of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 17 articles fulfilled inclusion criteria. Positive outcomes of mentorship include promotion of research, perpetuation of further mentorship, increased perceived support and enhancement of teaching skills. One article reported a negative outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence regarding mentorship in psychiatry is limited and there is a lack of clarity regarding the relationship between positive outcomes and mentorship. Components of the included programs may act as confounders. Mentorship, protected teaching time, and didactic teaching may be important to encourage research. Other potential benefits of mentorship include enhanced career guidance, perceived support, and enriched teaching skills.

Evaluating an Advisor Program for Psychiatry Residents

PURPOSE

A formal residency advisory program was instituted in 2010 to assist psychiatry residents in achieving academic and personal goals and to help identify additional mentors. In this project the authors sought to evaluate and improve resident and faculty satisfaction with the residency advisory program.

METHODS

At the end of the 2013-2014 academic period, residents completed an anonymous survey to determine baseline satisfaction with the residency advisory program. A series of interventions were then implemented including the addition of a resident liaison to the program, formal recognition of faculty advisors, and email reminders regarding regular residency advisory meetings. Eight months later a follow-up survey was distributed to assess the impact of the interventions on resident and faculty satisfaction with the residency advisory program and mentoring within the residency program.

RESULTS

There were notable improvements in overall satisfaction with a 58% increase (p<0.05) in residents meeting with their advisors. After the intervention, residents were more likely to seek their resident advisor for help in facilitating relationships with potential career mentors (28% vs 72%, OR=6.64, 95% CI =1.83-24.08). Although 87% of all residents reported having mentors outside of the formal residency advisory program, approximately half of those who are in their first year post medical school (PGY1s) reported having no mentors outside of the residency advisory program (notably all women).

CONCLUSIONS

Resident advisory programs benefit from continuous evaluation and quality improvement with enhanced structure, including a senior resident position, leading to improved satisfaction. Residency advisory programs may be particularly useful in helping to facilitate relationships with other mentors, which may be particularly important for women early in their training.