Mentor Development Workshops

1. Mentor Development Workshops Jean Sorribas, Practice Education Facilitator

2. History of the Workshops Development • Difficulties in practice • Difficulty in evidencing student behaviour • Problems with different mentors working in different ways • Lack of clear understanding of the mentorship role and responsibilities in some cases • Started the PGCHE at University of Gloucestershire • Began co-training the Supervision course • Working on that informed the development of MDW • Feedback from mentors about what they wanted from updates

3. The theory • PGCHE firmly routed in Constructive Alignment (Biggs and Tang 2007) • Learning outcomes need to be clearly linked to learning activities • Experience of mentors and PPs – they sit through it but don’t absorb the information well • Active participation required by using a mix of activities, so some PP especially around the NMC Standards to Support Learning and Assessment in Practice (2008), in addition constructively aligned learning activities

4. How and what to provide? Consideration given to • length of Workshop and content • past experiences • how likely our mentors were to attend half a day as opposed to a full day • material to include • methods previously tried • new skills being acquired and how to utilise those effectively (mine) • what the desired outcome would be Estimated that we should be able to get most mentors through in 12 months then stop !

5. Content • Experience shows that mentors often do not remember the NMC Standards they should be working to • Mentors often feel ill equipped to use the Assessment Documentation (self assessment audits and student evaluations bear this out). • Mentors often feel confused about the wording of learning outcomes and skills sets, they feedback that too much changes too often. • Sometimes mentors do not mentor all that frequently so changes and unfamiliarity with paperwork compounds the problem. • Sign Off Mentor – the process of Signing Off in NP6 was due to start in the following February.

6. Supervision Course as inspiration • Experience of training on the Supervision Course which is skills based produced very good feedback related to content and appropriateness. • People were asked to work in threes for many of the activities, with supervisee, supervisor and an observer roles, people reported learning a lot from the observer role. • Taught content and activities interwoven in each day which meant that generally people remained more alert and gained more from the training.

7. Construction of the Workshops • A full days training, too much to put into half a day • The desired outcome was to develop Mentor skills and knowledge • Learning activities based on the idea that each mentor has experience as both student and mentor and that this experience should help to develop skills by drawing out peoples abilities in a safe situation • Activity based around scenarios, one in each year. • Reproduction of UWE Assessment documentation for MH and LD • Scenarios given out and each year separated initially • Assessed for PGCHE three times, on the first and second workshop and then the 4th.

8. What went well, what needed changing • Scenarios were good, however, the handing out and getting material back in then sorting it out was a problematic. • Finding too much supporting material that people were not really interested in and it all needed moving to different venues. • Although having each years assessment documentation available for the scenarios there was difficulty in managing the stapled booklets and they got tatty quickly and people wrote on them or wanted to take them away. • The environment was not ideal it was either freezing or too hot • Feedback was encouraging

9. Why did the workshops continue • Not the anticipated that volume attending initially and it became clear that the workshops would need time to develop - Still learning a lot about how to structure the day and what people found useful • Once mentors attended they talked about their experience and more people booked on the sessions. • Mentors felt supported in their role and knew where to come for information and help with anything they were facing. • Although there was resistance to ‘role’ play, because it is done in small groups and everyone has a go, it is less threatening. • Some Mentors wanted to book on for the next year for a workshop as an update, they liked discipline (MH +LD) specific and being workshops run within the trust.

10. Feedback and evaluation • Feedback and evaluation of the workshops was good to excellent on our evaluation form (uses a four point scale) and the feedback continues to be very at a similar level. • People valued being able to catch up with mentors/nurses they had not seen for a long time and were able to talk about students they had mentored or issues they had faced. • The workshop enable a mix of information giving around the process of managing students and the requirement of the NMC Standards • The workshop enrolment is managed through the Trust training system and attendance can then be demonstrated more easily to managers

11. From the trust and my point of view • Information giving was done as things arose around processes and procedures, as these were scenario based queries there seems to have been a level of deeper learning demonstrated by the increase in earlier contacts from mentors when they were concerned about students. • Questions were asked about UWE and whether students ever fail, this often led to discussions about the experiences of mentors. • These discussions enable the emphasis on following a process that included good practice in terms of supervision of students on a frequent basis and keeping a record of what was agreed. • The support available to mentors was clearly communicated as well as the need to act as soon as concerns about students were experienced.

12. Review of the package • The package for this workshop is reviewed each summer • New scenarios are developed from my experience or the experience of other PEFs or equivalents. • Scenarios often have a theme and emphasis is given to each placement being part of the whole process of 6 placements and the connections between are highlighted. • The assessment documentation is printed off and some of it is completed so that in later scenarios mentors need to review previous entries and achievements • This year the subject of Educational Audit and where it fits has been introduced. • Although mentors only need to attend once so they are clear about the trusts expectations of that role, some have booked on for a third time.

13. Outcomes • Mentors have more confidence in managing situations and appear to be more aware of the knowledge and skill they bring to the role – they have transferable skills. • Rapid identification of issues means that the AiP is busy and busier than the very first AiP we had, it means that students with problems are identified early and issues can be addressed early. • There is no observer role this year we are into Team Mentoring which improves support for students, consistency of assessment and enables mentors to talk about what they see with students, which is usually consistent from mentor to mentor

14. Feedback to mentors • Problems that arise in mentoring are highlighted and solutions discussed • Mentors are encouraged to think about why people fail to fail students. • Acknowledgement of how difficult it is to manage a failing student is given throughout the workshop • Mentors are encouraged to think about their skill level and ability which is considerable and to know that the trust values what they do for students. • The workshop ticks a number of boxes, so updating, knowledge development, meeting the NMC Standards and it is on their training record.

15. Workshops and the NMC Standards • The workshops provide an opportunity for mentors to discuss student issues in a group setting • They enable mentors to network • They enable mentors to find new solutions from the way others work • They enable mentors to reduce feelings of isolation. • Because we recommend mentoring in pairs or as a team people are less worried about taking on students as they feel it is ok to share the load. • They function as a mentor update

16. For the Future • While the workshops evaluate well and produce good results in terms of mentoring they will continue. • Content needs to be monitored for relevance and topicality. • Confidentiality is important but the use of real situations even when disguised makes the learning deeper. • They have improved our figures for updates, we like all our mentors to stay current so that allocations and support for students is easier to manage. • We have had over 200 attendances at mentor workshops, now in the third year of delivery, it has improved our ability to meet the standard for updates as well as improving consistency of mentoring for students.

17. References • Biggs, J.,. Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. 3rd Edition Maidenhead, Open University Press. • NMC (2008) Standards to support Learning and Assessment in Practice. London. NMC.