Clinical Mentoring of Anaesthesiologists-Resuscitators: A Comparative Analysis of Supervision and Admission to Practice

In Russian medical practice, a research gap is revealed between the normative organization of mentoring and the specific operationalization of professional autonomy: the duration of supervision has not yet been correlated with the objectively observed progress of the doctor. The regulatory consolidation has actualized this issue. The aim of the study is to compare the mechanisms of mentoring, supervision, feedback, and the granting of self-support within the Russian, pan‑European, British, and American regulatory and educational frameworks. We studied 36 open sources: 9 Russian regulatory and methodological documents, 7 international standards and professional frameworks, and 20 research publications from 2005 to 2026. The three groups were mutually exclusive. The official status and primary function of the source served as criteria; double counting was not allowed. Directional qualitative content analysis, relative institutional comparison, critical integrative synthesis, and conceptual modeling were used. We have distinguished six mechanisms: mentoring, clinical supervision, coaching, feedback, workplace-based assessment, and decision of trust. A cycle has been proposed: initial assessment, individual plan, observation, feedback, portfolio, and periodic collegiate review. A project cycle documentation example has been developed, with a patient handover from the operating room to the intensive care unit, and participant responsibilities, data protection, and the limits of collegial decision were specified. The design admits to evaluate educational mechanisms, but not the causal impact of mentoring on medical errors or clinical outcomes.