AJCP / Editorial
Career Mentoring Michael L. Wilson, MD From the Department of Pathology & Laboratory Services, Denver Health, Denver, CO, and Department of Pathology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO. DOI: 10.1309/AJCPJQY3GBTCR2LE
In this issue of the Journal, we present the third in our series of articles on education and training in pathology and laboratory medicine.1 In this article, Guarner and colleagues report on one aspect of education and training that receives little real emphasis, that of career mentoring and counseling. The road to becoming a practicing physician or scientist requires many decisions along the way. For pathology trainees, the group of interest in this article, it begins with decisions at the college level, specifically whether to apply to medical school. Then, at some point during medical school, students begin the process of deciding which medical specialty to pursue. Once matched into a residency training program, the next decision is if, when, and where to undertake one or more fellowships to obtain subspecialty training. At another point, trainees must make other decisions: what type of setting to work in (roughly divided into academia, industry, military service, public health service, or private practice); whether to be a generalist, specialist, or subspecialist; whether to devote part of one’s career to administration; whether to participate in teaching or training; how much time and effort (if any) to devote to other interests such as global health initiatives; whether to pursue research interests; and many others. These are big decisions, and there are many to make. Yet historically we have provided little or no guidance to students and trainees as to how to make effective decisions at each of these steps along the road. For many of us, trying to develop a formal structure for mentoring and decision making seems to be at best counterintuitive. After all, most of the decisions just described are personal in nature, are heavily based on subjective experiences, and do not lend themselves to standardized approaches. At the same time, it is clear that many of us were fortunate enough to have good mentors at many points in our careers. From this, several obvious questions arise. First, do good mentors share common traits, experiences, or practices? Second, is good mentoring something that can be taught and learned? Third, is good mentoring 454 454
Am J Clin Pathol 2014;141:454 DOI: 10.1309/AJCPJQY3GBTCR2LE
reproducible so that it can be scaled up to reach larger groups of trainees? Fourth, can it be studied in a rational and scientific manner? And last, are there alternative approaches that are at least as effective as traditional, informal, one-on-one mentoring? The approach taken by Guarner and colleagues1 is one possible alternative. In reading the description of this approach, one is struck that it not only preserves the ability of faculty to share individual experiences and perceptions but it also meets many of the criteria that are needed for formal education and training: the structure is reproducible, it is scalable, it can be evaluated for its effectiveness, and the evidence derived from that knowledge can be used to design more effective approaches. The idea of career panels is not new; using them to improve mentoring and career counseling in health care training is relatively new. To date, there is little analysis as to its effectiveness. The article by Guarner and colleagues1 has another perhaps more important merit. All of us who are involved in education and training recognize and acknowledge the many gaps in what we do, especially the lack of new teaching and training methods that move us beyond traditional approaches. At the same time, we also recognize the need for students and trainees to learn from the experiences of their mentors, to have direct interactions between mentors and trainees, and, in a time of radical change in health care delivery, open and honest communications about what careers in health care are really like. The approach by Guarner and colleagues preserves this sharing of individual experience and provides a structure for open communication between those at the start, middle, and end of careers. It is a good start for learning new approaches to a most challenging but neglected aspect of education and training.
Reference 1. Guarner J, Hill CE, Caliendo AM. Career panel for pathology residents: going beyond the core curriculum. Am J Clin Pathol. 2014;141:478-481. © American Society for Clinical Pathology
Copyright of American Journal of Clinical Pathology is the property of American Society of Clinical Pathologists and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Career Mentoring Michael L. Wilson, MD From the Department of Pathology & Laboratory Services, Denver Health, Denver, CO, and Department of Pathology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO. DOI: 10.1309/AJCPJQY3GBTCR2LE
In this issue of the Journal, we present the third in our series of articles on education and training in pathology and laboratory medicine.1 In this article, Guarner and colleagues report on one aspect of education and training that receives little real emphasis, that of career mentoring and counseling. The road to becoming a practicing physician or scientist requires many decisions along the way. For pathology trainees, the group of interest in this article, it begins with decisions at the college level, specifically whether to apply to medical school. Then, at some point during medical school, students begin the process of deciding which medical specialty to pursue. Once matched into a residency training program, the next decision is if, when, and where to undertake one or more fellowships to obtain subspecialty training. At another point, trainees must make other decisions: what type of setting to work in (roughly divided into academia, industry, military service, public health service, or private practice); whether to be a generalist, specialist, or subspecialist; whether to devote part of one’s career to administration; whether to participate in teaching or training; how much time and effort (if any) to devote to other interests such as global health initiatives; whether to pursue research interests; and many others. These are big decisions, and there are many to make. Yet historically we have provided little or no guidance to students and trainees as to how to make effective decisions at each of these steps along the road. For many of us, trying to develop a formal structure for mentoring and decision making seems to be at best counterintuitive. After all, most of the decisions just described are personal in nature, are heavily based on subjective experiences, and do not lend themselves to standardized approaches. At the same time, it is clear that many of us were fortunate enough to have good mentors at many points in our careers. From this, several obvious questions arise. First, do good mentors share common traits, experiences, or practices? Second, is good mentoring something that can be taught and learned? Third, is good mentoring 454 454
Am J Clin Pathol 2014;141:454 DOI: 10.1309/AJCPJQY3GBTCR2LE
reproducible so that it can be scaled up to reach larger groups of trainees? Fourth, can it be studied in a rational and scientific manner? And last, are there alternative approaches that are at least as effective as traditional, informal, one-on-one mentoring? The approach taken by Guarner and colleagues1 is one possible alternative. In reading the description of this approach, one is struck that it not only preserves the ability of faculty to share individual experiences and perceptions but it also meets many of the criteria that are needed for formal education and training: the structure is reproducible, it is scalable, it can be evaluated for its effectiveness, and the evidence derived from that knowledge can be used to design more effective approaches. The idea of career panels is not new; using them to improve mentoring and career counseling in health care training is relatively new. To date, there is little analysis as to its effectiveness. The article by Guarner and colleagues1 has another perhaps more important merit. All of us who are involved in education and training recognize and acknowledge the many gaps in what we do, especially the lack of new teaching and training methods that move us beyond traditional approaches. At the same time, we also recognize the need for students and trainees to learn from the experiences of their mentors, to have direct interactions between mentors and trainees, and, in a time of radical change in health care delivery, open and honest communications about what careers in health care are really like. The approach by Guarner and colleagues preserves this sharing of individual experience and provides a structure for open communication between those at the start, middle, and end of careers. It is a good start for learning new approaches to a most challenging but neglected aspect of education and training.
Reference 1. Guarner J, Hill CE, Caliendo AM. Career panel for pathology residents: going beyond the core curriculum. Am J Clin Pathol. 2014;141:478-481. © American Society for Clinical Pathology
Copyright of American Journal of Clinical Pathology is the property of American Society of Clinical Pathologists and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
