[Mentoring in urological postgraduate training : Use of a competence matrix for the evaluation of results]

OBJECTIVES

For the professional development of junior employees, sufficient competence is decisive for their career. The mentoring programme Urology Roadmap provides residents career planning in various roles (junior staff member, developer, networker, multiplier). To date, no data are available on the extent to which the role matrix instrument is suitable as a competence matrix for evaluating results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a prospective longitudinal study, the competence development of 21 mentees was recorded by their mentors in a validated questionnaire (The Munich Evaluation of Mentoring Questionnaire, MEMeQ). A modified role matrix based on CanMEDs (Canadian Medical Education Directives for Specialists) was used as an assessment tool. The focus of the evaluation was on four defined roles at three levels (private, employer-related, (inter)national) with four development stages.

RESULTS

The highest level of satisfaction was found for the aspect "successful design of the career path" (93%) and the lowest was found for the aspect "facilitation of everyday working life" (67%). In all, 93% recommend participation. The mentees achieved significant increases in competence in all four roles. The highest level of competence was found in the role of junior employee (m_start 1.3 ± 0.7, m_end 2.4 ± 0.7, p < 0.001), followed by developer (m_start 1.2 ± 0.8, m_end 2.2 ± 0.7, p < 0.001) and networker (m_start 1.3 ± 0.7, m_end 2.1 ± 0.6, p < 0.001). Of the mentees, 54% were able to achieve the target competence level 2 in more than 90% of all roles and levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The instrument role matrix is suitable to objectively evaluate the results of the mentoring programme and reflects the state of personnel development.

[The White man's burden - a case study caught between bipolar affective disorder and Huntington's disease]

We report upon a case of a 55 year old patient with a bipolar affective disorder, presenting herself with a depressive symptomatology in addition to a severe motor perturbation. The main emphasis upon admittance was perfecting and improving her latest medication. Four weeks prior to her stay at our clinic a thorough neurological examination had taken place in terms of an invalidity pension trial which did not result in any diagnostic findings. Therefore a neurological disease seemed at first highly unlikely. Even though the prior testing was negative, the ensuing neurological examination at our clinic resulted in movement disorders very much indicative of Huntington's Disease. A detailed investigation in regards to the particular family history of the patient was positive for Huntington's Disease. However, whether the patient's mother had also been a genetic carrier of Huntington's Disease was still unknown at the time the patient was admitted to our clinic. It was nevertheless discovered that her mother had also suffered from a bipolar affective disorder. A genetic testing that followed the neurological examination of the patient proved positive for Huntington's Disease. Neuro-imaging resulted in a bicaudate-index of 2.4 (the critical value is 1.8). In a clinical psychological test battery the ensuing results were highly uncommon for patients with solely a bipolar affective disorder people. Under the medical regimen of Quetiapine, Citalopram and Tiaprid the patient's mood could be stabilized and there was some improvement of her motor pertubation.