Evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations: a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Amidst expanding roles in education and policy making, questions have been raised about the ability of Clinical Ethics Committees (CEC) s to carry out effective ethics consultations (CECons). However recent reviews of CECs suggest that there is no uniformity to CECons and no effective means of assessing the quality of CECons. To address this gap a systematic scoping review of prevailing tools used to assess CECons was performed to foreground and guide the design of a tool to evaluate the quality of CECons. METHODS: Guided by Levac et al's (2010) methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews, the research team performed independent literature reviews of accounts of assessments of CECons published in six databases. The included articles were independently analyzed using content and thematic analysis to enhance the validity of the findings. RESULTS: Nine thousand sixty-six abstracts were identified, 617 full-text articles were reviewed, 104 articles were analyzed and four themes were identified - the purpose of the CECons evaluation, the various domains assessed, the methods of assessment used and the long-term impact of these evaluations. CONCLUSION: This review found prevailing assessments of CECons to be piecemeal due to variable goals, contextual factors and practical limitations. The diversity in domains assessed and tools used foregrounds the lack of minimum standards upheld to ensure baseline efficacy. To advance a contextually appropriate, culturally sensitive, program specific assessment tool to assess CECons, clear structural and competency guidelines must be established in the curation of CECons programs, to evaluate their true efficacy and maintain clinical, legal and ethical standards.

Combined novice, near-peer, e-mentoring palliative medicine program: A mixed method study in Singapore.

INTRODUCTION: An acute shortage of senior mentors saw the Palliative Medicine Initiative (PMI) combine its novice mentoring program with electronic and peer mentoring to overcome insufficient mentoring support of medical students and junior doctors by senior clinicians. A three-phased evaluation was carried out to evaluate mentees' experiences within the new CNEP mentoring program. METHODS: Phase 1 saw use of a Delphi process to create a content-valid questionnaire from data drawn from 9 systematic reviews of key aspects of novice mentoring. In Phase 2 Cognitive Interviews were used to evaluate the tool. The tool was then piloted amongst mentees in the CNEP program. Phase 3 compared mentee's experiences in the CNEP program with those from the PMI's novice mentoring program. RESULTS: Thematic analysis of open-ended responses revealed three themes-the CNEP mentoring process, its benefits and challenges that expound on the descriptive statistical analysis of specific close-ended and Likert scale responses of the survey. The results show mentee experiences in the PMI's novice mentoring program and the CNEP program to be similar and that the addition of near peer and e-mentoring processes enhance communications and support of mentees. CONCLUSION: CNEP mentoring is an evolved form of novice mentoring built on a consistent mentoring approach supported by an effective host organization. The host organization marshals assessment, support and oversight of the program and allows flexibility within the approach to meet the particular needs of mentees, mentors and senior mentors. Whilst near-peer mentors and e-mentoring can make up for the lack of senior mentor availability, their effectiveness hinges upon a common mentoring approach. To better support the CNEP program deeper understanding of the mentoring dynamics, policing and mentor and mentee training processes are required. The CNEP mentoring tool too needs to be validated.

Assessing mentoring: A scoping review of mentoring assessment tools in internal medicine between 1990 and 2019.

BACKGROUND: Mentoring's success in enhancing a mentee's professional and personal development, and a host organisations' reputation has been called into question, amidst a lack of effective tools to evaluate mentoring relationships and guide oversight of mentoring programs. A scoping review is proposed to map available literature on mentoring assessment tools in Internal Medicine to guide design of new tools. OBJECTIVE: The review aims to explore how novice mentoring is assessed in Internal Medicine, including the domains assessed, and the strengths and limitations of the assessment methods. METHODS: Guided by Levac et al.'s framework for scoping reviews, 12 reviewers conducted independent literature reviews of assessment tools in novice mentoring in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ERIC, Cochrane, GreyLit, Web of Science, Open Dissertations and British Education Index databases. A 'split approach' saw research members adopting either Braun and Clarke's approach to thematic analysis or directed content analysis to independently evaluate the data and improve validity and objectivity of the findings. RESULTS: 9662 abstracts were identified, 187 full-text articles reviewed, and 54 full-text articles included. There was consensus on the themes and categories identified through the use of the split approach, which were the domains assessed and methods of assessment. CONCLUSION: Most tools fail to contend with mentoring's evolving nature and provide mere snap shots of the mentoring process largely from the mentee's perspective. The lack of holistic, longitudinal and validated assessments propagate fears that ethical issues in mentoring are poorly recognized and addressed. To this end, we forward a framework for the design of 'fit for purpose' multi-dimensional tools. PRACTICE POINTS: Most tools focus on the mentee's perspective, do not consider mentoring's evolving nature and fail to consider mentoring holistically nor longitudinallyA new tool capable of addressing these gaps must also consider inputs from all stakeholders and take a longitudinal perspective of mentoring.

Training clinical ethics committee members between 1992 and 2017: systematic scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical ethics committees (CECs) support and enhance communication and complex decision making, educate healthcare professionals and the public on ethical matters and maintain standards of care. However, a consistent approach to training members of CECs is lacking. A systematic scoping review was conducted to evaluate prevailing CEC training curricula to guide the design of an evidence-based approach. METHODS: Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews was used to evaluate prevailing accounts of CEC training published in six databases. Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis approach was adopted to thematically analyse data across different healthcare and educational settings. RESULTS: 7370 abstracts were identified, 92 full-text articles were reviewed and 55 articles were thematically analysed to reveal four themes: the design, pedagogy, content and assessment of CEC curricula. CONCLUSION: Few curricula employ consistent approaches to training. Many programmes fail to provide CEC trainees with sufficient knowledge, skills and experience to meet required competencies. Most programmes do not inculcate prevailing sociocultural, research, clinical and educational considerations into training processes nor provide longitudinal support for CEC trainees. Most CEC training programmes are not supported by host institutions threatening the sustainability of the programme and compromising effective assessment and longitudinal support of CEC trainees. While further reviews are required, this review underlines the need for host organisations to support and oversee a socioculturally appropriate ethically sensitive, clinically relevant longitudinal training, assessment and support process for CEC trainees if CECs are to meet their roles effectively.

Understanding the Mentoring Environment Through Thematic Analysis of the Learning Environment in Medical Education: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Mentoring's success has been attributed to individualised matching, holistic mentoring relationships (MRs) and personalised mentoring environments (MEs). Whilst there is growing data on matching and MRs, a dearth of ME data has hindered development of mentoring programme. Inspired by studies likening MEs to learning environments (LEs) and data highlighting common characteristics between the two, this systematic review scrutinises reports on LEs to extrapolate the findings to the ME context to provide a better understanding of ME and their role in the mentoring process. METHODS: Using identical search strategies, 6 reviewers carried out independent literature reviews of LEs in clinical medicine published between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2015 using PubMed, ERIC, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Google Scholar and Scopus databases. Braun and Clarke's (2006) approach to thematic analysis was adopted to circumnavigate LE's evolving, context-specific, goal-sensitive, learner-tutor relationally dependent nature. RESULTS: A total of 4574 abstracts were identified, 90 articles were reviewed, and 58 full-text articles were thematically analysed. The two themes identified were LE structure and LE culture. LE structure regards the framework that guides interactions within the LE. LE culture concerns the values and practices influencing learner-tutor-host organisation interactions. DISCUSSION: LE is the product of culture and structure that influence and are influenced by the tutor-learner-host organisation relationship. LE structure guides the evolving tutor-learner-host organisation relationship whilst the LE culture nurtures it and oversees the LE structure. Similarities between LEs and MEs allow LE data to inform programme designers of ME's role in mentoring's success.

A framework for mentoring of medical students: thematic analysis of mentoring programmes between 2000 and 2015.

A consistent mentoring approach is key to unlocking the full benefits of mentoring, ensuring effective oversight of mentoring relationships and preventing abuse of mentoring. Yet consistency in mentoring between senior clinicians and medical students (novice mentoring) which dominate mentoring processes in medical schools is difficult to achieve particularly when mentors practice in both undergraduate and postgraduate medical schools. To facilitate a consistent approach to mentoring this review scrutinizes common aspects of mentoring in undergraduate and postgraduate medical schools to forward a framework for novice mentoring in medical schools. Four authors preformed independent literature searches of novice mentoring guidelines and programmes in undergraduate and postgraduate medical schools using ERIC, PubMed, CINAHL, OVID and Science Direct databases. 25,605 abstracts were retrieved, 162 full-text articles were reviewed and 34 articles were included. The 4 themes were identified-preparation, initiating and supporting the mentoring process and the obstacles to effective mentoring. These themes highlight 2 key elements of an effective mentoring framework-flexibility and structure. Flexibility refers to meeting the individual and changing needs of mentees. Structure concerns ensuring consistency to the mentoring process and compliance with prevailing codes of conduct and standards of practice.