Mentorship in physical medicine and rehabilitation residencies.

Abstract

Mentorship is considered by many authorities as being possibly the most important developmental tool for the progression of a professional in training. In recent years, progressively increasing support of mentoring programs has been documented, especially in business, academia, and overall career development. Despite its recognized importance, there is a paucity of literature examining the needs of physicians in residency training programs in regard to mentorship. A 21-item questionnaire was sent to all physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) residents in training in United States residency programs in May of 1993. The objectives of this survey were 3-fold: to assess interest in mentorship among PM&R residents, to determine the effect of preresidency mentorship on candidates choosing PM&R as a specialty, and to identify the factors that establish a successful mentorship in PM&R residency. A response rate of 36.2% (406/1123) was obtained. Analysis of the results indicated that 97.3% (390/401) of the respondents were interested in mentorship programs during PM&R residency; however, only 28.1% (114/406) had a mentor at the time of the survey. Before residency, 35.4% (143/404) of the respondents had a mentor, and of those, 75.9% (107/141) indicated that mentorship had a positive effect on their decision to choose PM&R as a specialty. Regarding the current mentorship, respondents benefited the most in the categories of increased knowledge of PM&R, 72.8% (83/114), and improved clinical skills, 65.8% (75/114). The least satisfaction was with the mentor's assistance with a research project, 46% (52/113), and with the effect of mentorship on the resident's visibility and reputation, 38.6% (44/114). Overall resident satisfaction with mentorship was significantly higher (P < 0.0001) in mentorships formed by free choice compared with those that were formally assigned by the residency program. Success of mentorship significantly correlated (P < 0.0001) with frequency of communication between mentor and protégé, while gender and ethnicity had no effect.