From leadership research to district action: Unpacking Mentorship: A Review of Its Role in Contemporary Postgraduate Surgical Education

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide. Proposed district actions are separate from the original authors’ findings and recommendations. Independent peer review of this guide is not asserted.

Read source Search paper agent CC BY 4.0

Evidence and transfer

Education-related source: verify which participants, institutions and outcomes were actually studied before district adoption. Source publication type: review-article. License and identity checks do not establish study quality or causality.

Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the source license:

Mentorship is a cornerstone of postgraduate surgical education, supporting the development of clinical competence, research capability, professional identity, and psychological well-being. Despite its recognised importance, access to effective mentorship during surgical training remains inconsistent. This review aimed to evaluate the role, impact, and challenges of mentorship within postgraduate surgical education. A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Comprehensive searches of Ovid Medline, Embase, and Emcare identified studies published between 2015 and 2025 that examined mentorship in surgical residency programs. Eligible studies explored mentorship models, outcomes, and implementation strategies. Data were extracted on study design, participant characteristics, mentorship approaches, and key outcomes. Due to methodological heterogeneity, findings were synthesised narratively. In total, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing a range of surgical specialties and mentorship formats. Mentorship demonstrated consistent benefits across multiple domains. Structured programs enhanced academic productivity, with mentored residents producing more publications, engaging in research, and achieving greater scholarly output. Mentorship also improved technical skills, procedural confidence, and reflective practice. Professionally, mentored trainees reported stronger leadership development, clearer career trajectories, and higher examination success. Psychosocially, mentorship was associated with reduced burnout, improved confidence, and greater work-life balance. Peer and near-peer mentoring models further strengthened collegiality and accessibility. However, barriers such as limited time, inadequate mentor training, and inconsistent institutional support were frequently reported. Mentorship is integral to postgraduate surgical training, offering substantial academic, clinical, and professional benefits. Structured, well-resourced programs with protected time, trained mentors, and formal institutional recognition yield the most sustainable outcomes. Future initiatives should focus on standardised evaluation frameworks, long-term impact assessment, and innovative mentorship delivery models. Embedding mentorship as a core component of surgical education is essential for cultivating competent, resilient, and future-ready surgical professionals.

Study methods

A systematic literature review was undertaken to examine the role of mentorship in postgraduate surgical education. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [16], as shown in Figure 1.

Limitations

Despite the evident benefits, several barriers to effective mentorship were identified (Table 2). Time constraints and heavy clinical workloads were the most frequently cited obstacles across studies [17,23,27]. Both mentors and mentees struggled to maintain regular meetings, leading to inconsistent engagement. Mentor availability and training also emerged as key limitations; few institutions provided structured mentor development programs, resulting in variable quality and preparedness. Schmalbach et al. [21] noted that mentor shortages limited cohort size and extended program duration, while Salles et al. [26] and Ratan et al. [25] found inconsistent participation due to scheduling conflicts and lack of accountability structures.

A 90-day district inquiry

Days 1–15 · Appraise. Read the source methods, recruitment, comparator, outcomes and limitations. Record how the study setting differs from your district and which claim the design can support.
Days 16–30 · Design. Choose one school improvement question with teachers. Protect a short shared planning cycle, agree an instructional change and use a common rubric for examining student work. Agree participation, privacy protections, baseline and stopping rules before starting.
Days 31–60 · Observe. Collect the pre-agreed measures, keep a log of implementation changes and invite confidential voluntary feedback. Preserve existing support for staff and learners.
Days 61–90 · Decide. Review implementation fidelity, teacher time and independently scored student work against a recorded baseline. Examine access differences and competing explanations before attributing changes to leadership. Make a dated decision to stop, revise or extend the inquiry.

Board decision brief

Present the local problem, source setting, evidence limits, intervention, responsible owner, total cost, measured changes and uncertainty. Separate staff perceptions, implementation measures and student learning outcomes.

Attribution and reuse

Daniel Thomas; Thomas Oldfield; Hannah Bamford. Unpacking Mentorship: A Review of Its Role in Contemporary Postgraduate Surgical Education. Cureus (2025-12-17). https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.99455

Prepared 2026-11-07. Source authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract and source passages are attributed extracts; this editorial guide is offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license.