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
BACKGROUND: Patients' stories provide Palliative Care physicians with a glimpse into the former's lives and their psycho-emotional, sociocultural, and contextual considerations. Yet, few physicians are trained to interpret and apply patients' stories in their practice. Inherent variability in how stories are transmitted and interpreted raises questions over their potential effects on care. Amidst a dearth of accounts in Palliative Care, we map current use of patient stories to guide the training, assessment, and oversight of this 'care influencing' practice in medicine. METHODS: This systematic scoping review was guided by the Systematic Evidence-Based Approach (SEBA) to ensure a reproducible and structured approach. The themes and categories identified through the Split Approach's concurrent and independent thematic and directed content analyses provided a comprehensive sketch of the included articles. The Jigsaw Perspective combined the themes and categories identified. The last stage of SEBA compared these results with two recent reviews of storytelling to ensure consistency of the domains created that guided the discussion. RESULTS: Ten thousand two hundred seven articles were reviewed, 963 full text articles were evaluated, and 199 articles were included. The four domains identified were study characteristics, benefits, approaches, and positive effects and concerns. CONCLUSION: Stories support patient-centered, personalized, and holistic clinical care. However, variability in the stories, their interpretations and use in care decisions underscore the need for further study on the structuring, teaching, assessing, and delivery of this 'care influencing' practice.