Priami Diletta, Sollami Alfonso, Vivoli Vanessa, Artioli Giovanna
Agenzia Socio Sanitaria Regione Emilia Romagna.
Acta Biomed. 2015 Sep 9;86 Suppl 2:97-103.
The areas that we wanted to investigate include: tasks performed, tools used, formalization of the assignment, workload, empowerment and satisfaction of the function performed, and training. The results clearly show that the processes of tutoring are different for physicians and non-physician healthcare professionals. The first interesting difference is the method of assignment of mentoring. While among medical professions the function is assigned by others, tutors are often non-medical volunteers. This evidence leads to two unanswered questions: what are the criteria by which they are chosen as tutors? Do volunteers really possess the skills and ability to carry out this role? Future research should be directed towards clearly defining the profile of the "tutor" among both doctors and non-medical professionals. Another difference is the way the work of the mentor is formalized. If they are doctors, the task is assigned to them; this is not the case for non-medical professions. Despite this difference, a high percentage of both medical professionals and doctors said they did not feel valued for their role of tutor. However, differences emerge: physicians see their role as a paid tutor and / or recognized in their curriculum vitae. For non-medical professions, however, the only reward is a recognition of ECM (Educazione Continua in Medicina)credits. A common feature among professionals is that for both physicians and non-physician healthcare tutors, a system of evaluation is rarely reported. Another common feature is the skills that professionals would like to see improved. Both groups of professionals, in fact, would like to see improved teaching methods, communication strategies and reporting and evaluation systems. Finally, non-physician tutors report the same level of satisfaction, although the non-physician professionals are more satisfied in their relationship with colleagues. The degree of empowerment reveals perceived differences and similarities among the professionals. In fact, both professional groups reported the same levels of competence and impact, but differ in meaning and self-determination. More specifically, the non-medical professionals show high scores, while doctors get a higher score for self-determination. These results suggest that for increased attention to the system of evaluation and enhancement of the function tutorial we need not only to increase the satisfaction of those who act as tutors, but also to improve the tutorial process itself. Furthermore, the results suggest the carrying out of training projects for teaching and assessment methods that represent the issues that are most in demand by tutors. The training should include the use of tools for the governance process that project tutorial and apprenticeships. The responses indicate that these tools are already in use, although not as widespread and continuous.
执行的任务、使用的工具、任务分配的形式化、工作量、执行职能的授权与满意度以及培训。结果清楚地表明，医生和非医生医疗专业人员的辅导过程存在差异。第一个有趣的差异是指导分配的方法。在医疗行业中，职能是由他人分配的，而导师通常是非医疗志愿者。这一证据引出了两个未解决的问题：他们被选为导师的标准是什么？志愿者真的具备履行这一角色的技能和能力吗？未来的研究应致力于明确医生和非医疗专业人员中“导师”的形象。另一个差异是导师工作的形式化方式。如果是医生，任务会分配给他们；非医疗行业则并非如此。尽管存在这种差异，但很大比例的医疗专业人员和医生都表示，他们作为导师的角色没有得到重视。然而，差异也显现出来：医生将他们的角色视为有报酬的导师和/或在简历中得到认可。然而，对于非医疗行业来说，唯一的奖励是获得ECM（继续医学教育）学分。专业人员的一个共同特点是，很少有医生和非医生医疗导师报告有评估体系。另一个共同特点是专业人员希望看到得到改进的技能。事实上，两组专业人员都希望看到教学方法、沟通策略以及报告和评估体系得到改进。最后，非医生导师报告的满意度水平相同，尽管非医生专业人员对与同事的关系更满意。授权程度揭示了专业人员之间存在的差异和相似之处。事实上，两个专业群体报告的能力和影响力水平相同，但在意义和自主决定权方面存在差异。更具体地说，非医疗专业人员得分较高，而医生在自主决定权方面得分更高。这些结果表明，为了更多地关注评估体系并加强辅导职能，我们不仅需要提高担任导师者的满意度，还需要改进辅导过程本身。此外，结果表明应开展针对教学和评估方法的培训项目，这些方法是导师最需要的问题。培训应包括使用用于管理项目辅导和学徒制过程的工具。回复表明这些工具已经在使用，尽管并不广泛且持续使用。
