MENTORSHIP IN PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION RESIDENCIES

Mentorship is considered by many authorities as being possibly the mos t important developmental tool for the progression of a professional i n training, In recent years, progressively increasing support of mento ring programs has been documented, especially in business, academia, a nd overall career development. Despite its recognized importance, ther e is a paucity of literature examining the needs of physicians in resi dency training programs in regard to mentorship. A 21-item questionnai re was sent to all physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) residen ts in training in United States residency programs in May of 1993. The objectives of this survey were 3-fold: to assess interest in mentorsh ip among PM&R residents, to determine the effect of preresidency mento rship on candidates choosing PM&R as a specialty, and to identify the factors that establish a successful mentorship in PM&R residency. A re sponse rate of 36.2% (406/1123) was obtained. Analysis of the results indicated that 97.3% (390/401) of the respondents were interested in m entorship 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) i ndicated that mentorship had a positive effect on their decision to ch oose PM&R as a specialty. Regarding the current mentorship, respondent s 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 lea st satisfaction was with the mentor's assistance with a research proje ct, 46% (52/113), and with the effect of mentorship on the resident's visibility and reputation, 38.6% (44/114). Overall resident satisfacti on with mentorship was significantly higher (P < 0.0001) in mentorship s formed by free choice compared with those that were formally assigne d by the residency program. Success of mentorship significantly correl ated (P < 0.0001) with frequency of communication between mentor and p rotege, while gender and ethnicity had no effect.