Should mentoring be routinely introduced into general dental practice to reduce the risk of occupational stress?
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
Aim - The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions of experienced foundation dental trainers within the Health Education, Kent, Surrey and Sussex postgraduate deanery as to the usefulness of routine mentoring as a tool to reduce occupational stress. Methods Using a qualitative approach, six individual semi-structured interviews were undertaken. Recorded interviews were transcribed and transcriptions were analysed using thematic coding to identify overarching themes.
Results - Both similarities and differences with the existing literature on routine mentoring within professional settings were identified. Foundation dental trainers were positive towards the concept of routine mentoring, although there was also a degree of scepticism regarding the potential uptake amongst colleagues. There was a perception that mentoring might more practically be used as a reactionary tool. Multiple potential barriers to routine mentoring were identified, included funding, scheduling and a lack of training.
Conclusions - The analysis identified that currently, experienced foundation dental practitioners do not consider routine mentoring as a practical option in the prevention of occupational stress. The results would suggest that further education is required as to the benefits of routine mentoring as a strategy for occupational stress management. However, with additional resources buying time, a hybrid model of mentoring and coaching has significant potential in general dental practice.
|Number of pages||5|
|Journal||British Dental Journal|
|Publication status||Published - 26 Jul 2019|
- Should mentoring be routinely introduced
Rights statement: This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in British Dental Journal. The final authenticated version is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41415-019-0484-3.
Accepted author manuscript (Post-print), 202 KB, PDF document