Mentorship Case

In this assignment the author will critically analyse an assessment decision based on a final assessment interview of a module 8 student. In order to critically analyse the situation five points will be considered and explored such as, was the assessment conducted fairly and accurately? Was the assessment decision just? Was feedback to the learner timely and constructive? Was the documentation clear and unambiguous? And lastly was professional accountability considered. The NMC (2006) standard for mentors to support learning and assessment in practice will be used as benchmark. The assessment and competency of student Angela and mentor Mia will now be explored.

Expectations for the assessment of learning in practice have been set out by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) (2006). In many ways this emphasises the NMC's existing responsibilities but it also highlights the challenges for those who co-ordinate the mentorship of learners at all levels, for example, arranging consistent assessments in practice (Brady and Hyde 2002, Stuart 2003, McGaughey 2004), and dealing with the shortage of well-prepared, clinically based teachers or practice mentors.

In analysing this scenario, Mia had allocated uninterrupted time to complete Angela's final interview, after conducting a review of Angela's performance Mia started the interview by praising Angela on her achievement and for the improvements in her time keeping since the midpoint interview. Mia had reservation regarding Angela's level of competence, In order to achieve a learning outcome, competence has to be demonstrated by nursing students. Beaumont (1996) defines competence as the ability to apply 'knowledge, understanding and skills in performing to the standards required in employment, including solving problems and meeting changing demands'. Those necessary attributes according to Stuart (2003) are known as competencies, and include knowledge, skills, personal traits, attitudes and values. Levels of competency will vary according to the stage in training. Prior to conducting the interview with Angela, Mia sort out feedback from other

colleagues who had worked with Angela, from the gathered information received reveals that Angela does not pay attention to patients and the MDT, communication problems, poor time keeping, knowledge of signs and symptoms is insufficient. Looking at the interviews, none of these issues are documented with the exception of time keeping.

Angela did not have any constructive feedback from the team members. The only comment from her midpoint interview reflected on her time keeping which Jackie said has improved slightly. It also appears that Mia is unaware of these problems until the final interview. Moreover as stipulated by NMC (2006) advises that student should spend 40% of student placement learning with their mentee. Nonetheless, it is not always possible to do so, due to increasing workload and staff shortage. Mentorship relies on a supportive system where the mentor challenges the mentee to embrace opportunities and problems and realise their strengths and weaknesses (Neary 2000). Working in partnership to negotiate, plan and manage learning can help in achieving a balance.

Though Mia's colleagues have spoken about Angela's time keeping, poor communication skills, signs and symptom is limited, skills are limited and also cannot recall information correctly; these competencies have been successfully signed off by a nursed called Erika Weiss. It is concerning that Erika Weiss's name is on Angela's assessment document as Mia is Angela's only allocated mentor. One has to question Mia's judgement in allowing this to happen. Feedback from Mia's colleagues, Angela's self assessment, Mia's own judgement and Erika Weiss opinion, this make the assessment process invalid and unreliable as there are contradictions in Angela's performance and inconsistent interpretation of her progress. Howard et al (2003) suggested that validity and reliability are two crucial criteria for assessment; he stresses the point that both are equally important when assessing theory and practice. Valid is defined by the oxford dictionary

(1999) as sound and well grounded, according to Howard et al (2003) validity means that the assessment should measure exactly what it means to measure. Reliability on the other hand is defined as dependable. Stuart (2007) stated an assessment is said to be reliable if it produces similar results when used on separate occasions and with different mentors.

Furthermore, Angela is unhappy with the feedback given to her; she feels that people were unwilling to work with her during the past