Peer mentoring in doctor performance assessment: strategies, obstacles and benefits

Medical Education 2010: 44 : 140–147 Context  Mentors are increasingly involved in doctor performance assessments. Mentoring seems to be a key determinant in achieving the ultimate goal of those assessments, namely, improving doctor performance. Little is known, however, about how mentors perceive a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medical education 2010-02, Vol.44 (2), p.140-147
Hauptverfasser: Overeem, Karlijn, Driessen, Erik W, Arah, Onyebuchi A, Lombarts, Kiki M J M H, Wollersheim, Hub C, Grol, Richard P T M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 147
container_issue 2
container_start_page 140
container_title Medical education
container_volume 44
creator Overeem, Karlijn
Driessen, Erik W
Arah, Onyebuchi A
Lombarts, Kiki M J M H
Wollersheim, Hub C
Grol, Richard P T M
description Medical Education 2010: 44 : 140–147 Context  Mentors are increasingly involved in doctor performance assessments. Mentoring seems to be a key determinant in achieving the ultimate goal of those assessments, namely, improving doctor performance. Little is known, however, about how mentors perceive and fulfil this role. Objective  The aim of this paper is to expand understanding of the role of mentors in performance assessment. Methods  Thirty‐eight mentors undertook formative performance assessments of their peers in a pilot study. A mixed‐methods design was used, consisting of a postal survey (n = 28) and qualitative interviews with a subset of mentors (n = 11). Individual semi‐structured interviews were completed and transcripts were analysed by two researchers using a grounded theory approach. Results  The results of the survey showed that 89% of mentors intended to continue in their mentorship role. Interviews revealed that mentors used several strategies in the assessments, including: contrasting and collating information; posing reflective questions, and goal setting. Mentors experienced difficulty in disregarding their views of the doctors evaluated. Some mentors noticed obstacles with specific interview skills such as ‘paying attention to their colleagues’ strengths’ and ‘enabling doctors to find their own solutions’. Mentors reported that they and their organisations benefited from the assessments. The perceived benefits included: improved interview skills; increased solidarity, and increased mutual respect. Conclusions  The study provides insights into what mentors can do to increase the chance that externally derived information is integrated into doctors’ self‐assessments. Mainly, mentors used strategies aimed at effectively delivering feedback and encouraging reflection. However, we found that mentors who took part in our study appeared to struggle with a number of obstacles related to: time investment; familiarity with the doctor assessed, and the acquiring of specific interview skills.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03580.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_734011892</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>734011892</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4870-dd921e369d87d06a5c7401f0ab435f360a91eda0a52fbfa45568bd5192608fb43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkM1u1DAURi0EosPAKyBvEBsSrmM7cVgglaG0oBaoSsXScpLrKkN-Bt-MmL49DjMMW7yxLZ_vu9ZhjAtIRVyv16mQuU6yMpNpBlCmILWBdPeALY4PD9kCJJgEhIAT9oRoDQCFVuYxO4kZBaDVgt18RQy8x2EaQzvc8XbgzVjHC99g8GPo3VAjd0RINFNvOE3BTXjXIr3iY0WTqzsk7oaGVzigbyd6yh551xE-O-xLdvvh7NvqIrn8cv5xdXqZ1MoUkDRNmQmUedmYooHc6bpQIDy4SkntZQ6uFNg4cDrzlXdK69xUjRZlloPxEVqyl_veTRh_bpEm27dUY9e5Acct2ULGPmGiiyUze7IOI1FAbzeh7V24twLsbNSu7SzOzuLsbNT-MWp3Mfr8MGRb9dgcg38VRuDFAXBUu86HaKylf1wWO0GZyL3dc7_aDu__-wP26uz97XyMBcm-oKUJd8cCF37YvJCFtt8_n9vVxdWn63c311bJ367WoQY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>734011892</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Peer mentoring in doctor performance assessment: strategies, obstacles and benefits</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Education Source</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Overeem, Karlijn ; Driessen, Erik W ; Arah, Onyebuchi A ; Lombarts, Kiki M J M H ; Wollersheim, Hub C ; Grol, Richard P T M</creator><creatorcontrib>Overeem, Karlijn ; Driessen, Erik W ; Arah, Onyebuchi A ; Lombarts, Kiki M J M H ; Wollersheim, Hub C ; Grol, Richard P T M</creatorcontrib><description>Medical Education 2010: 44 : 140–147 Context  Mentors are increasingly involved in doctor performance assessments. Mentoring seems to be a key determinant in achieving the ultimate goal of those assessments, namely, improving doctor performance. Little is known, however, about how mentors perceive and fulfil this role. Objective  The aim of this paper is to expand understanding of the role of mentors in performance assessment. Methods  Thirty‐eight mentors undertook formative performance assessments of their peers in a pilot study. A mixed‐methods design was used, consisting of a postal survey (n = 28) and qualitative interviews with a subset of mentors (n = 11). Individual semi‐structured interviews were completed and transcripts were analysed by two researchers using a grounded theory approach. Results  The results of the survey showed that 89% of mentors intended to continue in their mentorship role. Interviews revealed that mentors used several strategies in the assessments, including: contrasting and collating information; posing reflective questions, and goal setting. Mentors experienced difficulty in disregarding their views of the doctors evaluated. Some mentors noticed obstacles with specific interview skills such as ‘paying attention to their colleagues’ strengths’ and ‘enabling doctors to find their own solutions’. Mentors reported that they and their organisations benefited from the assessments. The perceived benefits included: improved interview skills; increased solidarity, and increased mutual respect. Conclusions  The study provides insights into what mentors can do to increase the chance that externally derived information is integrated into doctors’ self‐assessments. Mainly, mentors used strategies aimed at effectively delivering feedback and encouraging reflection. However, we found that mentors who took part in our study appeared to struggle with a number of obstacles related to: time investment; familiarity with the doctor assessed, and the acquiring of specific interview skills.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0308-0110</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2923</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03580.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20040054</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Attitude of Health Personnel ; Biological and medical sciences ; Clinical Competence ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Education, Medical, Continuing - organization &amp; administration ; Female ; Health participants ; Humans ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Mentors - psychology ; Miscellaneous ; Netherlands ; Peer Group ; Pilot Projects ; Public health. Hygiene ; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine ; Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><ispartof>Medical education, 2010-02, Vol.44 (2), p.140-147</ispartof><rights>Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4870-dd921e369d87d06a5c7401f0ab435f360a91eda0a52fbfa45568bd5192608fb43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4870-dd921e369d87d06a5c7401f0ab435f360a91eda0a52fbfa45568bd5192608fb43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2923.2009.03580.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2923.2009.03580.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=22292048$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20040054$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Overeem, Karlijn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Driessen, Erik W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arah, Onyebuchi A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lombarts, Kiki M J M H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wollersheim, Hub C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grol, Richard P T M</creatorcontrib><title>Peer mentoring in doctor performance assessment: strategies, obstacles and benefits</title><title>Medical education</title><addtitle>Med Educ</addtitle><description>Medical Education 2010: 44 : 140–147 Context  Mentors are increasingly involved in doctor performance assessments. Mentoring seems to be a key determinant in achieving the ultimate goal of those assessments, namely, improving doctor performance. Little is known, however, about how mentors perceive and fulfil this role. Objective  The aim of this paper is to expand understanding of the role of mentors in performance assessment. Methods  Thirty‐eight mentors undertook formative performance assessments of their peers in a pilot study. A mixed‐methods design was used, consisting of a postal survey (n = 28) and qualitative interviews with a subset of mentors (n = 11). Individual semi‐structured interviews were completed and transcripts were analysed by two researchers using a grounded theory approach. Results  The results of the survey showed that 89% of mentors intended to continue in their mentorship role. Interviews revealed that mentors used several strategies in the assessments, including: contrasting and collating information; posing reflective questions, and goal setting. Mentors experienced difficulty in disregarding their views of the doctors evaluated. Some mentors noticed obstacles with specific interview skills such as ‘paying attention to their colleagues’ strengths’ and ‘enabling doctors to find their own solutions’. Mentors reported that they and their organisations benefited from the assessments. The perceived benefits included: improved interview skills; increased solidarity, and increased mutual respect. Conclusions  The study provides insights into what mentors can do to increase the chance that externally derived information is integrated into doctors’ self‐assessments. Mainly, mentors used strategies aimed at effectively delivering feedback and encouraging reflection. However, we found that mentors who took part in our study appeared to struggle with a number of obstacles related to: time investment; familiarity with the doctor assessed, and the acquiring of specific interview skills.</description><subject>Attitude of Health Personnel</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Clinical Competence</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Education, Medical, Continuing - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health participants</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Mentors - psychology</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Netherlands</subject><subject>Peer Group</subject><subject>Pilot Projects</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><issn>0308-0110</issn><issn>1365-2923</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkM1u1DAURi0EosPAKyBvEBsSrmM7cVgglaG0oBaoSsXScpLrKkN-Bt-MmL49DjMMW7yxLZ_vu9ZhjAtIRVyv16mQuU6yMpNpBlCmILWBdPeALY4PD9kCJJgEhIAT9oRoDQCFVuYxO4kZBaDVgt18RQy8x2EaQzvc8XbgzVjHC99g8GPo3VAjd0RINFNvOE3BTXjXIr3iY0WTqzsk7oaGVzigbyd6yh551xE-O-xLdvvh7NvqIrn8cv5xdXqZ1MoUkDRNmQmUedmYooHc6bpQIDy4SkntZQ6uFNg4cDrzlXdK69xUjRZlloPxEVqyl_veTRh_bpEm27dUY9e5Acct2ULGPmGiiyUze7IOI1FAbzeh7V24twLsbNSu7SzOzuLsbNT-MWp3Mfr8MGRb9dgcg38VRuDFAXBUu86HaKylf1wWO0GZyL3dc7_aDu__-wP26uz97XyMBcm-oKUJd8cCF37YvJCFtt8_n9vVxdWn63c311bJ367WoQY</recordid><startdate>201002</startdate><enddate>201002</enddate><creator>Overeem, Karlijn</creator><creator>Driessen, Erik W</creator><creator>Arah, Onyebuchi A</creator><creator>Lombarts, Kiki M J M H</creator><creator>Wollersheim, Hub C</creator><creator>Grol, Richard P T M</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201002</creationdate><title>Peer mentoring in doctor performance assessment: strategies, obstacles and benefits</title><author>Overeem, Karlijn ; Driessen, Erik W ; Arah, Onyebuchi A ; Lombarts, Kiki M J M H ; Wollersheim, Hub C ; Grol, Richard P T M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4870-dd921e369d87d06a5c7401f0ab435f360a91eda0a52fbfa45568bd5192608fb43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Attitude of Health Personnel</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Clinical Competence</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Education, Medical, Continuing - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health participants</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Mentors - psychology</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Netherlands</topic><topic>Peer Group</topic><topic>Pilot Projects</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Overeem, Karlijn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Driessen, Erik W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arah, Onyebuchi A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lombarts, Kiki M J M H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wollersheim, Hub C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grol, Richard P T M</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Medical education</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Overeem, Karlijn</au><au>Driessen, Erik W</au><au>Arah, Onyebuchi A</au><au>Lombarts, Kiki M J M H</au><au>Wollersheim, Hub C</au><au>Grol, Richard P T M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Peer mentoring in doctor performance assessment: strategies, obstacles and benefits</atitle><jtitle>Medical education</jtitle><addtitle>Med Educ</addtitle><date>2010-02</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>140</spage><epage>147</epage><pages>140-147</pages><issn>0308-0110</issn><eissn>1365-2923</eissn><abstract>Medical Education 2010: 44 : 140–147 Context  Mentors are increasingly involved in doctor performance assessments. Mentoring seems to be a key determinant in achieving the ultimate goal of those assessments, namely, improving doctor performance. Little is known, however, about how mentors perceive and fulfil this role. Objective  The aim of this paper is to expand understanding of the role of mentors in performance assessment. Methods  Thirty‐eight mentors undertook formative performance assessments of their peers in a pilot study. A mixed‐methods design was used, consisting of a postal survey (n = 28) and qualitative interviews with a subset of mentors (n = 11). Individual semi‐structured interviews were completed and transcripts were analysed by two researchers using a grounded theory approach. Results  The results of the survey showed that 89% of mentors intended to continue in their mentorship role. Interviews revealed that mentors used several strategies in the assessments, including: contrasting and collating information; posing reflective questions, and goal setting. Mentors experienced difficulty in disregarding their views of the doctors evaluated. Some mentors noticed obstacles with specific interview skills such as ‘paying attention to their colleagues’ strengths’ and ‘enabling doctors to find their own solutions’. Mentors reported that they and their organisations benefited from the assessments. The perceived benefits included: improved interview skills; increased solidarity, and increased mutual respect. Conclusions  The study provides insights into what mentors can do to increase the chance that externally derived information is integrated into doctors’ self‐assessments. Mainly, mentors used strategies aimed at effectively delivering feedback and encouraging reflection. However, we found that mentors who took part in our study appeared to struggle with a number of obstacles related to: time investment; familiarity with the doctor assessed, and the acquiring of specific interview skills.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>20040054</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03580.x</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0308-0110
ispartof Medical education, 2010-02, Vol.44 (2), p.140-147
issn 0308-0110
1365-2923
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_734011892
source MEDLINE; Education Source; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Attitude of Health Personnel
Biological and medical sciences
Clinical Competence
Cross-Sectional Studies
Education, Medical, Continuing - organization & administration
Female
Health participants
Humans
Male
Medical sciences
Mentors - psychology
Miscellaneous
Netherlands
Peer Group
Pilot Projects
Public health. Hygiene
Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine
Surveys and Questionnaires
title Peer mentoring in doctor performance assessment: strategies, obstacles and benefits
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T00%3A03%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Peer%20mentoring%20in%20doctor%20performance%20assessment:%20strategies,%20obstacles%20and%20benefits&rft.jtitle=Medical%20education&rft.au=Overeem,%20Karlijn&rft.date=2010-02&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=140&rft.epage=147&rft.pages=140-147&rft.issn=0308-0110&rft.eissn=1365-2923&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03580.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E734011892%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=734011892&rft_id=info:pmid/20040054&rfr_iscdi=true