RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Effective mentorship is an important component of medical education with benefits to all stakeholders. In recent years, conceptualization of mentorship has gone beyond the traditional dyadic experienced mentor-novice mentee relationship to include group and peer mentoring. Existing theories of mentorship do not recognize mentoring's personalized, evolving, goal-driven, and context-specific nature. Evidencing the limitations of traditional cause-and-effect concepts, the purpose of this review was to systematically search the literature to determine if mentoring can be viewed as a complex adaptive system (CAS). METHODS: A systematic scoping review using Krishna's Systematic Evidence-Based Approach was employed to study medical student and resident accounts of mentoring and CAS in general internal medicine and related subspecialties in articles published between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2023 in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases. The included articles underwent thematic and content analysis, with the themes identified and combined to create domains, which framed the discussion. RESULTS: Of 5,704 abstracts reviewed, 134 full-text articles were evaluated, and 216 articles were included. The domains described how mentoring relationships and mentoring approaches embody characteristics of CAS and that mentorship often behaves as a community of practice (CoP). Mentoring's CAS-like features are displayed through CoPs, with distinct boundaries, a spiral mentoring trajectory, and longitudinal mentoring support and assessment processes. CONCLUSION: Recognizing mentorship as a CAS demands the rethinking of the design, support, assessment, and oversight of mentorship and the role of mentors. Further study is required to better assess the mentoring process and to provide optimal training and support to mentors.
Asunto(s)
Educación Médica , Tutoría , Humanos , Mentores , Estudiantes de Medicina/psicología , Internado y ResidenciaRESUMEN
CONTEXT: The provision of person-centered dignity-conserving care is central to palliative care. It is important to reevaluate current methods of assessing dignity as the concept of dignity is multifaceted. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to understand the tools which are used to assess a patient's dignity and the elements of dignity evaluated in these tools. METHODS: Two independent and concurrent Systematic Evidence-Based Approach guided systematic scoping reviews (SSR in SEBA) on existing dignity assessment tools and on accounts of assessments of dignity were carried out. The SSR in SEBA on dignity assessment tools involving PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, and CINAHL databases saw 22 full-text articles included from the 645 articles reviewed. The SSR in SEBA on accounts of assessments of dignity featured in the PubMed database identified 102 full-text articles which saw 46 articles included. RESULTS: The domains identified were factors affecting patients' definition of dignity; elements of dignity-conserving care; and components of effective tools. CONCLUSION: Current accounts to assess dignity and assessment tools fail to capture shifting self-concepts of dignity holistically. A portfolio-like appraisal of dignity is proposed to achieve assessments that are timely, longitudinal, and patient-specific. Portfolio-based assessments by members of the multidisciplinary team will better direct timely evaluations of relevant aspects of changing concepts of dignity, without losing the patient's holistic perception of dignity.