While Robert Alliott makes passing mention of mentoring schemes in several regions in his article in Career Focus,(1) he does not acknowledge the evident and specific influence on his own study of the pioneering three year mentor project in South Thames, which is currently being evaluated. A particularly relevant finding from this evaluation is the link between effective outcomes of mentoring interventions and the mentee's reliance on the confidentiality of information shared with the mentor Alliott's suggested extended use of such privileged information, even if anonymous, suggests the concurrent pursuit of institutional objectives, which would risk distortion and diminution of the reason for the existence of mentoring support and, on the basis of our experience in South Thames, would be hard to justity.
Mentoring is well established in other professions as a means of professional development,(2) and the literature points to inherent tensions in the role of the mentor if he or she also contributes, at whatever distance, to an assessment of performance at work.(3) Feedback on performance is, of course, essential for professional development, (4) and the mentor is poised to provide it, but only if certain criteria are met
The evaluation in South Thames shows that the unbiased and neutral role of the mentor, with the crucial absence of any "report back" function, is a critical factor in the mentee's ability to confront problems relating to organisational and clinical management and to work confidently towards achieving positive and effective change. All 65 mentees who were questioned attached appreciable value to the absolute confidentiality of their discussions with their mentor. Indeed, anxieties about how privileged information from the mentor interview might be used led to debates about what link (if any) might develop between, for example, mentoring and recertification.
The Anglia project discussed by Alliott provides further evidence of the potential of mentoring in reducing job related stress. South Thames can go further, with indicators that suggest that organisational issues such as morale and retention of practitioners can thereby also be addressed. Our experience, however, leads us to judge that use of information voiced in individual mentoring sessions to help resolve wider organisational issues, by another institutional route, will critically undermine the foundation on which our model of mentoring for promoting continuing medical education and professional development is essentially based.
The author's suggestion that local medical committees and the General Medical Council could make constructive use of this source of information puts confidentiality at risk. This must be strictly adhered to if the essential principles of mentoring are to be upheld
Rosslynne Freeman
Mentor project leader
South Thames
Thames Postgraduate Medical and Dental
Education,
Surrey Research Park
Guildford
GU2 5RF
References
1 AIliost R. Facilitatory mentoring in general practice. BMJ
1996;classified suppl:Sep 28. (http://www.bmj.com/bmj/
classified/7060cf.htm)
2 Merriam S. Mentors and proteges: a critical review of the literature. Adult Education Quarterly 1983;33:161-73.
3 Shaw R. Can mentoring raise achievement in schools? In: Wilkin M, ed. Mentoring in schools. London: Kogan Page, 1983:1O-1.
4 O'Hanlon C. The importance of an articulated personal theory of professional development In: Elliott J. ed. Reconstructing teacher education. London: Falmer,1993:23-4.
