https://doi.org/10.14528/snr.2023.57.1.3160
2023. Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 57(1), pp. 8–23.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: The interpersonal relationship between the nurse mentor and the mentee (i.e., student nurse) 
is critical to the success of the mentoring process and training of new nurses. The aim of this study was to 
examine and explore the interpersonal relationships between nurse mentors and their mentees and to identify 
the factors that influence their relationship.
Methods: A qualitative approach with a descriptive-interpretive design was used for data collection and 
analysis. Semi-structured interviews were conducted on a purposive sample of mentors and two focus 
groups with mentees – student nurses. Four mentors and eight mentees were involved in the study. Data were 
collected in December 2021 and analysed using content analysis.
Results: Mentors and mentees had relatively similar perceptions of their interpersonal relationship. We 
identified the common main theme "Mentor-Mentee Interpersonal Relationship", and two subthemes, namely 
"Characteristics of the Mentor-Mentee Interpersonal Relationship" and "Factors Influencing the Mentor-
Mentee Interpersonal Relationship". Both mentors and mentees were found to have consistent expectations 
regarding their role in clinical practice. The most important factors of their interpersonal relationship reported 
by both mentors and mentees were the personality traits of mentors and mentees, the setting of boundaries in 
their interpersonal relationship, the amount of time required to establish the interpersonal relationship, and 
differences in the relationship depending on the domain of clinical practice.
Discussion and conclusion: The study identifies the key characteristics and factors of the interpersonal 
relationship between the mentor and mentee in the mentoring process. It highlights the key elements that 
all those involved in clinical practice need to be aware of in order to overcome various potential barriers and 
improve the mentoring experience in the clinical setting. 
IZVLEČEK
Uvod: Medosebni odnos med mentorjem in mentorirancem je ključnega pomena za uspešno izpeljan proces 
mentoriranja in izobraževanje novega kadra na področju zdravstvene nege. Namen raziskave je bil preučiti 
in raziskati medosebne odnose med mentorji in mentoriranci zdravstvene nege ter ugotoviti, kateri dejavniki 
krojijo njihove odnose.
Metode: Uporabljena je bila kvalitativna metodologija raziskovanja in deskriptivno-interpretativni dizajn. 
Podatki na namenskem vzorcu štirih mentorjev so bili pridobljeni z individualnimi delno strukturiranimi 
intervjuji in na vzorcu osmih mentorirancev s pomočjo dveh fokusnih skupin. Podatki so bili zbrani v 
decembru 2021 in analizirani z metodo analize vsebine.
Rezultati: Ugotovljeno je bilo, da mentorji in mentoriranci njihov medosebni odnos dojemajo podobno. 
Identificirali smo skupno glavno temo »medosebni odnos mentor – mentoriranec« ter glavni podtemi 
»značilnosti medosebnega odnosa mentor – mentoriranec« in »dejavniki medosebnega odnosa mentor 
– mentoriranec«. Tako mentorji kot mentoriranci imajo skladna pričakovanja glede njihove vloge. Kot 
glavne dejavnike medosebnega odnosa so oboji izpostavili osebnostne lastnosti mentorja in mentoriranca, 
postavljanje mej v medosebnem odnosu, čas, namenjen vzpostavljanju medosebnega odnosa, ter razlike v 
odnosu glede na področje kliničnega usposabljanja.
Diskusija in zaključek: Ugotovljeni so bili ključne značilnosti in dejavniki medosebnega odnosa med 
mentorjem in mentorirancem v procesu mentoriranja. Izpostavili smo ključne elemente, ki se jih morajo v 
procesu kliničnega usposabljanja zavedati vsi udeleženci, saj le tako lahko premostijo različne potencialne 
ovire in izboljšajo izkušnjo mentoriranja v kliničnem okolju. 
Keywords: mentoring; nursing 
students; clinical practice; 
health system; faculty
Ključne besede: mentoriranje; 
študenti; klinično 
usposabljanje; zdravstveni 
sistem; fakulteta
1 University of Primorska, 
Faculty of Health Sciences, 
Department of Nursing, Polje 
42, 6310 Izola, Slovenia
* Corresponding author/
Korespondenčni avtor:  
deja.praprotnik@gmail.com
Original scientific article/Izvirni znanstveni članek
Interpersonal relationship between the mentor and mentee in clinical nursing 
practice: A qualitative study 
Medosebni odnos med mentorjem in mentorirancem v klinični praksi zdravstvene 
nege: kvalitativna raziskava
Ana Nastran, Deja Praprotnik*, Jakob Renko1, Sabina Ličen1, Mirko Prosen1
Received/Prejeto: 17. 1. 2021
Accepted/Sprejeto: 16. 10. 2022
© 2023 Avtorji/The Authors. Izdaja Zbornica zdravstvene in babiške nege Slovenije - Zveza strokovnih društev 
medicinskih sester, babic in zdravstvenih tehnikov Slovenije./Published by Nurses and Midwives Association 
of Slovenia. To je članek z odprtim dostopom z licenco CC BY-NC-ND 4.0./This is an open access article 
under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.
9Nastran, A., Praprotnik, D., Renko, J., Ličen, S., & Prosen, M. (2023)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 57(1), pp. 8–23.
Introduction
The aim of nursing education is to equip students 
with the required level of professional competence 
before they enter the profession (Immonen et al., 
2019). Nursing education is the foundation for 
a qualified and competent nursing workforce. A 
large part of this is the provision of high quality 
educational processes. As a standard for clinical 
placements, the clinical setting must provide a safe 
and supportive environment with a sufficient number 
of adequately trained and experienced staff (World 
Health Organization. Regional Office for the Eastern 
Mediterranean, 2015). Clinical mentors play a crucial 
role in supporting and assessing student nurses during 
their practical training. By definition, a mentor is 
an expert professional who facilitates learning and 
supervises and assesses students in the practice-based 
setting (Brown, Jones, & Davies, 2020).
A competent mentor is able to create a stimulating 
clinical learning environment, facilitate learning, 
monitor students' progress, assess their clinical 
competencies, and provide effective feedback. During 
clinical practice, the mentor provides constructive 
feedback and does not allow poor practice to 
continue (Immonen et al., 2019). To perform their 
role well, mentors need to possess and display certain 
personality traits, attitudes, values, motivation, 
commitment, satisfaction, problem-solving skills and 
work engagement (Pramila-Savukoski et al., 2020). 
While the mentor needs to help the student with 
experience and practical knowledge, the student's 
role is to bring new, fresh nursing knowledge and 
insights into the clinical setting. It is also important 
that mentees are capable of independent thinking, 
are reliable, responsible, and have a respectful 
attitude towards others (Babuder, 2016). During 
clinical practice, students need to demonstrate not 
only theoretical knowledge, but also improvement 
in their own research skills, critical thinking, self-
esteem, independent decision-making and effective 
interpersonal communication (Günay & Kılınç, 2018).
Students are interested in practical training in a 
clinical setting as there they can experience real-life 
situations and thus gain valuable experience. In clinical 
practice, learning can only take place if mentees 
feel safe and perceive their learning environment as 
positive. It is important that students are seen and 
heard, that their workload is adjusted, and that they 
feel they are not alone in delivering interventions. 
Creating a positive and trusting environment can help 
the mentee to learn and clarify their role as a future 
nurse, consequently reducing their anxiety about 
the future. Communication between the mentor and 
mentee is paramount in building trust and establishing 
the role of delegation and supervision during nursing 
education (Jeppesen, Christiansen, & Frederiksen, 
2017). 
In the Slovenian context, Babuder (2016) identifies 
certain differences in the perception of the mentor-
mentee interpersonal relationship, as well as the 
necessary qualities and virtues of each. He identifies 
communication and mutual respect as the key 
factors in this relationship, while age is shown to be 
an independent factor. He concludes that mentors 
expect their mentees to be respectful and aware of 
their duties during the mentoring process. Mentees, 
in turn, expect their mentors to devote them sufficient 
time, to be organised, approachable and creative in 
their mentoring. As noted by Joubert & de Villiers 
(2015), other important factors affecting the mentor-
mentee interpersonal relationship are the allocation 
of mentors and mentees to individual domains of 
nursing practice, the presence and competence of 
the mentor in the clinical setting, and a relationship 
based on trust. They suggest that the structure of the 
mentoring programme needs to be modified and 
improved by implementing certain changes. Previous 
research in this direction points to a knowledge gap 
in understanding the characteristics and factors that 
define the interpersonal relationship between the 
mentor and the mentee, and the need for a detailed 
investigation of this field (Dobrowolska et al., 2016; 
Nickitas, Villegas-Pantoja, & Jones, 2016; Nelson et 
al., 2018), which was also the motivation for this study.
Aims and objectives
The aim of the study was to examine and explore 
the interpersonal relationships between nursing 
mentors and their mentees and to identify the 
factors that influence them. Its objectives were to 
determine the value mentors and mentees place on 
their interpersonal relationship and the factors that 
influence this relationship. The following research 
questions were formulated:
– How do mentors and mentees experience their 
interpersonal relationship?
– What factors shape the interpersonal relationship 
between mentors and mentees? 
Methods
A qualitative method and an interpretive descriptive 
data analysis were used in the study. The latter allows 
for an exploration of the problem from the perspective 
of the individuals involved, i.e. nursing mentors and 
mentees, and helps to gain insight into their actual 
experiences (Smythe, 2012).
Description of the research instrument
The interview guide and thematic guide for the 
focus group were designed using pre-defined guiding 
questions developed on the basis of the research 
objectives. The first interview conducted was a pilot 
10 Nastran, A., Praprotnik, D., Renko, J., Ličen, S., & Prosen, M. (2023)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 57(1), pp. 8–23.
interview. It was used to test the relevance of the 
questionnaire, which was in line with the aim and 
objectives of the study.
The interview conducted with the mentors consisted 
of the following guiding questions: Have you received 
mentoring training? Do you prepare yourself for 
mentoring? How do you see your own role and the role 
of the mentee in the mentoring process? What kind of 
relationship do you wish to build with your mentee? 
Are there any factors that influence the relationship 
between you and your mentee? How do you set 
boundaries in your relationship with the mentee? How 
do you experience physical touch in your relationship 
with the mentee? Do you think you have enough time 
to complete mentoring successfully? 
The focus group interview for the mentees consisted 
of the following guiding questions: How do you see 
your own role and the role of your mentor in the 
mentoring process? What qualities do you think a good 
mentor should possess? What kind of relationship do 
you wish to establish with your mentor? Are there any 
factors that influence the relationship between you 
and your mentor? How do you perceive boundaries 
in the relationship with your mentor? How do you 
experience physical touch in the relationship with 
your mentor? Do you think your mentor devotes 
enough time to you?
Description of the sample
We used a purposive sample of registered nurses 
mentoring students in clinical practice and 
undergraduate nursing students from two medical 
faculties in Slovenia. To understand the interpersonal 
relationships in the process of clinical practice from 
the mentors' perspective, we included four registered 
nurses, two female and two male, who mentor students 
in different clinical settings and at different levels of 
health care. They had been mentoring students in 
clinical practice for an average of 11.5 years. Two of 
them had completed mentor training, the other two 
had not. Their decision to take on mentorship was 
motivated by their desire to pass on knowledge, which 
they also see as a work obligation and duty to the new 
staff. To understand the interpersonal relationships 
between mentors and mentees from the mentees' 
perspective, we recruited eight undergraduate nursing 
students, four women and four men, to participate 
in the study. One participant was in her first year of 
study, five in their second year and two in their third 
year. All had already completed at least one clinical 
placement. 
We conducted four individual interviews with 
mentors and two focus groups, each involving four 
students. Data saturation was established after two 
individual interviews and the two focus groups. 
Typically, data saturation occurs when the newly 
acquired data no longer contribute to further 
clarification of the categories (Vogrinc, 2008). 
Nevertheless, the authors decided to continue data 
collection until they reached a high level of saturation 
in describing the phenomenon under investigation. 
Description of the research procedure and data 
analysis
Participants were invited to take part in the study 
through personal acquaintances and further using 
the snowball method. Data were collected from a 
sample of mentors using individual semi-structured 
interviews and from a sample of mentees using a focus 
group interview. Prior to the interview, we explained 
the objectives of the study to the participants and 
agreed on the timing of the interview and focus 
groups according to their availability. To ensure 
adherence to the ethical standards of the research, 
all participants signed an informed consent form 
prior to the interviews and focus groups, informing 
them of the aims and process of the research, the 
risks and benefits involved, the expected duration of 
the interview, the confidentiality of the data and the 
voluntary nature of participation, as well as the option 
to end the interview at any time. Before the interviews 
began, they were again informed that the conversation 
would be recorded.
The study was conducted in December 2021. 
After the interviews, we transcribed the recordings, 
grammatically correcting participants' statements but 
leaving the content unchanged. Following this step, 
the transcripts were read several times, and markers 
relevant to the study were created. For data processing, 
we used Yin's (2010) model of content analysis: (1) 
compilation of the text; (2) disassembly of the text 
– coding; (3) reassembly of the text –grouping into 
larger semantic units; (4) interpretation of the results; 
(5) conceptualisation of the phenomenon under 
study. Triangulation of data was ensured through a 
literature review, individual interviews with mentors, 
and focus groups with mentees. In addition, we also 
applied researcher triangulation, as three researchers 
were involved in the revision and validation of the 
content and adoption of the final thematic concept. 
This allowed for credibility of the data analysis and a 
better understanding of the phenomenon under study. 
Results
We identified a central theme for both mentors 
and mentees, which we termed "Mentor-Mentee 
Interpersonal Relationship". It was divided into two 
subthemes: "Characteristics of the Mentor-Mentee 
Interpersonal Relationship" and "Factors Influencing 
the Mentor-Mentee Interpersonal Relationship". The 
thematic concept is shown in Table 1.
11Nastran, A., Praprotnik, D., Renko, J., Ličen, S., & Prosen, M. (2023)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 57(1), pp. 8–23.
Ta
bl
e 
1:
 A
 sc
he
m
at
ic 
re
pr
es
en
ta
tio
n 
of
 th
e t
he
m
es
, s
ub
th
em
es
 a
nd
 co
de
s f
or
 m
en
to
rs
 a
nd
 m
en
te
es
Th
em
es
Su
bt
he
m
es
C
od
es
C
od
es
Su
bt
he
m
es
Th
em
es
M
en
te
es
' p
er
sp
ec
tiv
e
M
en
to
rs
' p
er
sp
ec
tiv
e
M
en
to
r-
M
en
te
e 
In
te
rp
er
so
na
l 
Re
la
tio
ns
hi
p
C
ha
ra
ct
er
ist
ic
s o
f 
th
e 
M
en
to
r-
M
en
te
e 
In
te
rp
er
so
na
l 
Re
la
tio
ns
hi
p
Pe
rs
on
al
 v
ie
w
s o
n 
m
en
to
rin
g
At
tit
ud
es
 to
w
ar
ds
 p
re
pa
ra
tio
n 
fo
r t
he
 
m
en
to
rin
g 
ro
le
C
ha
ra
ct
er
ist
ic
s 
of
 th
e 
M
en
to
r-
M
en
te
e 
In
te
rp
er
so
na
l 
Re
la
tio
ns
hi
p
M
en
to
r-
M
en
te
e 
In
te
rp
er
so
na
l 
Re
la
tio
ns
hi
p
Th
e 
m
en
te
e's
 p
er
sp
ec
tiv
e 
of
 th
e 
m
en
to
r's
 ro
le
Th
e 
m
en
to
r's
 p
er
sp
ec
tiv
e 
of
 th
e 
m
en
to
r's
 ro
le
Th
e 
m
en
te
e's
 p
er
sp
ec
tiv
e 
of
 th
e 
m
en
te
e's
 ro
le
Th
e 
m
en
to
r's
 p
er
sp
ec
tiv
e 
of
 th
e 
m
en
te
e's
 ro
le
D
es
ira
bl
e 
qu
al
iti
es
 o
f a
 m
en
to
r
Ex
pe
ct
at
io
ns
 in
 th
e 
in
te
rp
er
so
na
l r
el
at
io
ns
hi
p
D
es
ire
d 
in
te
rp
er
so
na
l r
el
at
io
ns
hi
p
M
en
to
r's
 b
ar
rie
rs
 to
 m
en
to
rin
g
C
om
m
un
ic
at
io
n 
in
 th
e 
in
te
rp
er
so
na
l 
re
la
tio
ns
hi
p
C
om
m
un
ic
at
io
n 
in
 th
e 
in
te
rp
er
so
na
l 
re
la
tio
ns
hi
p
At
tit
ud
es
 to
w
ar
ds
 p
hy
sic
al
 to
uc
h 
in
 th
e 
in
te
rp
er
so
na
l r
el
at
io
ns
hi
p
At
tit
ud
es
 to
w
ar
ds
 p
hy
sic
al
 to
uc
h 
in
 th
e 
in
te
rp
er
so
na
l r
el
at
io
ns
hi
p
Th
e 
m
en
te
e's
 e
xp
er
ie
nc
e 
of
 n
ur
sin
g 
pr
ac
tic
e
Re
as
on
s f
or
 th
e 
m
en
te
es
' d
iss
at
isf
ac
tio
n 
w
ith
 
cl
in
ic
al
 p
ra
ct
ic
e
Su
gg
es
tio
ns
 fo
r i
m
pr
ov
in
g 
cl
in
ic
al
 p
ra
ct
ic
e
C
on
fli
ct
 re
so
lu
tio
n 
in
 in
te
rp
er
so
na
l 
re
la
tio
ns
hi
ps
A
ct
ua
l a
nd
 d
es
ire
d 
tr
ai
ni
ng
 o
f m
en
to
rs
C
ol
la
bo
ra
tio
n 
w
ith
 th
e 
fa
cu
lty
 in
 o
rg
an
isi
ng
 
m
en
te
es
' c
lin
ic
al
 p
ra
ct
ic
e
Fa
ct
or
s I
nfl
ue
nc
in
g 
th
e 
M
en
to
r-
M
en
te
e 
In
te
rp
er
so
na
l 
Re
la
tio
ns
hi
p
Pe
rs
on
al
 q
ua
lit
ie
s o
f t
he
 m
en
to
r a
nd
 th
e 
m
en
te
e
Pe
rs
on
al
 q
ua
lit
ie
s o
f t
he
 m
en
to
r a
nd
 th
e 
m
en
te
e
Fa
ct
or
s 
In
flu
en
ci
ng
 th
e 
M
en
to
r-
M
en
te
e 
In
te
rp
er
so
na
l 
Re
la
tio
ns
hi
p
Se
tti
ng
 b
ou
nd
ar
ie
s i
n 
th
e 
in
te
rp
er
so
na
l 
re
la
tio
ns
hi
p
Se
tti
ng
 b
ou
nd
ar
ie
s i
n 
th
e 
in
te
rp
er
so
na
l 
re
la
tio
ns
hi
p
Ti
m
e 
de
di
ca
te
d 
to
 e
st
ab
lis
hi
ng
 a
n 
in
te
rp
er
so
na
l r
el
at
io
ns
hi
p
Ti
m
e 
de
di
ca
te
d 
to
 e
st
ab
lis
hi
ng
 a
n 
in
te
rp
er
so
na
l r
el
at
io
ns
hi
p
D
iff
er
en
ce
s i
n 
at
tit
ud
e 
by
 a
re
a 
of
 cl
in
ic
al
 
pr
ac
tic
e
D
iff
er
en
ce
s i
n 
at
tit
ud
e 
by
 a
re
a 
of
 cl
in
ic
al
 
pr
ac
tic
e
M
en
te
e's
 o
w
n 
in
iti
at
iv
e 
in
 th
e 
cl
in
ic
al
 se
tti
ng
M
en
te
e's
 fa
cu
lty
-a
llo
ca
te
d 
w
or
kl
oa
d 
N
um
be
r o
f m
en
te
es
 p
er
 m
en
to
r i
n 
th
e 
cl
in
ic
al
 
se
tti
ng
In
flu
en
ce
 o
f t
he
 w
or
k 
en
vi
ro
nm
en
t o
n 
th
e 
m
en
to
rin
g 
pr
oc
es
s
In
flu
en
ce
 o
f t
he
 m
en
to
r's
 a
nd
 m
en
te
e's
 "g
oo
d 
da
y"
 a
nd
 "b
ad
 d
ay
".
Th
e 
fir
st
 co
nt
ac
t b
et
w
ee
n 
m
en
to
r a
nd
 m
en
te
e
Th
e 
ro
le
 o
f g
en
de
r i
n 
th
e 
m
en
to
rin
g 
re
la
tio
ns
hi
p
M
en
te
e's
 e
xp
ec
ta
tio
ns
12 Nastran, A., Praprotnik, D., Renko, J., Ličen, S., & Prosen, M. (2023)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 57(1), pp. 8–23.
Characteristics of the mentor-mentee interpersonal 
relationship
The following section presents the perspectives of 
mentors and mentees regarding the characteristics of 
their relationship. It highlights the findings regarding 
their personal views on mentoring, the role of the 
mentor, the role of the mentee, and other key elements 
included in the subtheme "Characteristics of the 
Mentor-Mentee Interpersonal Relationship". 
All mentors defined their role as one of imparting 
knowledge, familiarising the student with a particular 
field of practice, encouraging and supporting the 
student, and resolving potential conflicts that may 
arise in the mentoring process.
I see my role as trying to give students an insight into 
the actual practice. This allows them to get a feel for the 
environment and the dynamics of work. (Mentor 1)
My aim is to familiarise students with the field and 
offer them support. I observe their feelings, expectations, 
motivation and the difficulties they experience. My 
role as a clinical mentor is to constantly look for ways 
to engage them. As clinical mentors, we have to take a 
share of the responsibility in case of an unproductive, 
strained or even unprofessional relationship. (Mentor 2)
Mentors see the role of the mentee as equally 
important in building a successful interpersonal 
relationship in the mentoring process. Therefore, 
mentors have certain expectations of their mentees, 
such as a desire to work and learn, to become familiar 
with the field, and to show initiative.
It is important to have a certain zeal, a certain life-
oriented attitude towards work. The student must have 
a certain ability to behave appropriately. (Mentor 3)
I see the student's role as having fun, being eager to 
learn, explore and ask questions. (Mentor 4)
They do not have to be enthusiastic and ask questions 
all the time. /…/ They have to show initiative. This 
makes the role of the mentor and mentee an interactive 
one, it is more productive, and both benefit from the 
relationship. (Mentor 2)
Mentees see the role of the mentor as a leader/
supervisor. They experience the mentor as someone 
who guides the learning process and on whom they 
can rely. Opinions were divided on whether or not the 
mentor should be with the mentee at all times. The 
mentees see their own role as being actively engaged in 
the process, showing interest and willingness to work. 
They want the mentors to back them up and support 
them, to see them not as a burden, but someone they 
can trust and accept into their ranks.
I think the mentor should take the lead, he or she 
should be the one who assigns you work tasks, who 
shows you around the department, because you rely on 
your mentor to teach you new things. (Mentee 5)
In my opinion, it is my role as a student to make an 
effort and be involved in the process of nursing practice, 
to show interest and be prepared. (Mentee 4)
What matters to me is the mentor's commitment and 
trust. (Mentee 7)
Mentees adhere to the basic rules of etiquette and 
address their mentors formally (using the formal 'you' 
in Slovenian, i.e. vikanje) until told otherwise. They 
believe that this shows them respect and acknowledges 
their superior role.
I always address my mentor formally at the beginning 
until they tell me otherwise. Unless I am told otherwise, 
I address my mentor formally throughout the placement. 
/…/ You cannot address your superior informally unless 
they specifically say so. (Mentee 8)
Most mentors indicated that they preferred to keep 
spoken interaction formal at the beginning of the 
mentor-mentee relationship. Later in the mentoring 
process, based on the established relationship, many 
choose to address the mentee informally if the 
mentee agrees. All respondents believe that this is 
an individual decision of each mentor based on the 
established relationship. 
This is not a rule, each mentor makes their own 
decision. I prefer formality in communication. It also 
depends on the student. Towards the end I say, /…/ we 
can switch to informal address. (Mentor 3)
In the context of non-verbal communication, 
mentors favour the use of appropriate physical contact 
in the form of handshakes at first contact, showing 
praise, attracting attention, and implementing 
nursing interventions. Due to the SARS-Cov-19 virus 
pandemic, the perception of touch has changed; the 
line between what is appropriate and desirable has 
become even more blurred. Mentors agree that any 
inappropriate touching or other actions that could be 
interpreted as sexual harassment are unacceptable. 
Among the factors limiting physical contact, gender 
was not highlighted, but rather the personality traits of 
the mentee and their attitude towards and acceptance 
of physical touch. One mentor pointed out that gender 
plays an important role in the relationship, but only 
because of the biological differences between the 
sexes. 
For the past two years, it's been so strange in terms 
of physical contact. /…/ I like physical contact when I 
shake hands, or when I tap someone on the shoulder, 
when I just want to interrupt or remind, when I explain 
something, when I need something urgently, it's not a 
problem. /…/ Maybe if the mentee is a boy, I might tell 
him that he is more suitable for a department where 
there is a lot of lifting. (Mentor 4)
We can always cross the line, not only with touching, 
but also with words, with behaviours that can make the 
student feel uncomfortable, in distress, or even sexually 
harassed. (Mentor 2)
All mentees largely agree with mentors on the 
use of physical touch. They approve of appropriate 
physical touching that does not evoke feelings of 
sexual harassment. There are differences in this 
attitude depending on the gender of the mentee, with 
13Nastran, A., Praprotnik, D., Renko, J., Ličen, S., & Prosen, M. (2023)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 57(1), pp. 8–23.
women highlighting gender as a factor influencing the 
experience of physical touch. Both, however, largely 
agree that personality has a greater impact on the 
experience. 
It feels right to shake hands when you first meet. Also, 
if you have done well in an intervention, if you have 
succeeded in something, you can give a high five or a 
fist bump. If you are touched on the back or in any way 
from behind during your time off, which some people do, 
no, that is not appropriate, permissible touch. (Mentee 
2)
It doesn't matter to me whether a man or a woman 
taps me on the shoulder. (Mentee 8)
However, I think it depends on the person, on how 
they have been brought up. What the person is like is 
more important than their gender. (Mentee 4)
Factors influencing the mentor-mentee interpersonal 
relationship 
Both mentors and mentees mentioned personality 
traits as a factor influencing their interpersonal 
relationship. These included the individual's 
situational experience, character, ability to generate 
interest, sincerity, respect, and expectations.
The most important factors influencing the 
relationship are certainly the personality and character 
traits of the individual. (Mentor 2)
Showing what one already knows, and admitting 
what one does not know. (Mentee 1)
In terms of the relationship, I think the first contact 
is important, so how the mentor presents themselves. 
(Mentee 4)
Both mentors and mentees also stressed the 
importance of setting and respecting certain 
boundaries, either spontaneously or consciously set, 
in order to ensure a productive relationship. Some 
mentors set them individually, others do not adjust 
them to the individual. They want these boundaries to 
be set in an appropriate, professional and constructive 
way, even if this is sometimes challenging.
As far as boundaries are concerned, I think they are 
already set quite naturally. (Mentor 3)
I think these boundaries are so subjective and 
individual that they arise mainly from the interpersonal 
relationship between the mentor and the student. /…/ 
Where there are challenges, the problem arises of how 
to set boundaries or how to resolve conflict situations. 
(Mentor 2)
Through work, you can see if the mentor sometimes 
acts light-heartedly, if they are not just strictly 
professional. Based on this, you can also assess where 
the boundaries are. (Mentee 4)
Both mentors and mentees highlighted the field of 
clinical practice and the clinical setting itself as factors 
that influence the interpersonal relationship and the 
quality of mentoring in terms of interest in the field 
and in terms of the relationships, working condotions 
and working conditions in the clinical setting that 
mentees enter. 
The area of clinical practice is also an important 
factor, as is the student's motivation and interest in a 
particular area. /…/ This also depends on the place of 
clinical practice, on whether it has a reputation for being 
an interesting and pleasant environment. (Mentor 2)
It also depends on the department and how the people 
who work there behave. Whether they get along well or 
not. (Mentee 5)
The time spent building a relationship was also 
highlighted as a common factor for both mentors 
and mentees. Mentors wished they had more time to 
devote to the study process, but they stated they could 
compensate for this by being well organised. Mentees 
feel that mentors often do not have enough time for 
them. Both mentors and mentees feel that they can 
build a better relationship and learn more through 
longer clinical placements. 
There is enough time if you schedule it properly /…/. 
The longer the placement, the better the relationship 
will be, and the more independence and competence the 
student will gain. (Mentor 2)
It seems to me that the mentors were mostly very busy. 
They were mostly heads of departments and consequently 
had no time for me. That's why I was assigned to another 
nurse to guide and teach me. (Mentee 4)
Some mentees highlighted the number of mentees 
in the clinical setting as a factor affecting interpersonal 
relationships. However, one mentor noted that 
mentees were less able to focus on fulfilling their 
responsibilities in the department due to the workload 
assigned to them by the faculty.
In clinical placements where I was the only student, it 
was mostly possible to achieve the desired relationship. 
In placements where there were, say, ten of us, or I was 
in a group, it was not possible. (Mentee 5)
Additional activities and tasks assigned by the faculty, 
such as nursing dossiers, article analyses, and the like. 
To some extent, such activities divert the student's 
attention from the actual activities in the clinical setting. 
(Mentor 2)
All mentors consider the first contact between the 
mentor and mentee to be very important. They describe 
how the dynamics in the department change that day 
and note that while they are looking forward to the 
student, they are also aware of the great responsibility 
that their placement entails. Two mentors pointed out 
that the interpersonal relationship can also be affected 
by the daily state of mind or mood of both the mentor 
and the mentee. One mentor noted that mentees like 
to know what is expected of them.
I think it's important that students are well received, 
that they are not just left sitting there all day with no 
one taking any notice of them. /…/ That the student is 
informed in advance about what is planned. I can see 
that they like that a lot. They also ask questions to get a 
general idea and remove uncertainty. (Mentor 4)
14 Nastran, A., Praprotnik, D., Renko, J., Ličen, S., & Prosen, M. (2023)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 57(1), pp. 8–23.
It depends on whether you come to work rested, 
whether you are tired, how well prepared you are. That's 
subjective, but of course it affects the relationship to a 
certain extent. Or whether you would just rather to sit 
down somewhere and be silent. (Mentor 3)
Discussion
The results of our study as well as those of other 
studies (Jokelainen, Tossavainen, Jamookeeah, & 
Turunen, 2013; Kaihlanen, Lakanmaa, & Salminen, 
2013; Huggins, 2016; Setati & Nkosi, 2017) show 
that mentors see their role as that of a teacher and 
supervisor and that they support, encourage and 
motivate their mentees during clinical practice. In this 
way, they enable their mentees to undergo appropriate 
socialisation into their potential work environment. 
Similar conclusions about the role of the mentor have 
also been reached in other studies reporting that 
students see their mentor as someone they can rely 
on and turn to for knowledge and advice (Kaihlanen 
et al., 2013; Foster, Ooms, & Marks-Maran, 2015; 
Babuder, 2016).
The results of our research show that mentees see 
their role as showing initiative, being actively engaged 
and demonstrating the knowledge they have acquired, 
which, according to other studies, mentors also expect 
of them (Jokelainen et al., 2013; Joubert & de Villiers, 
2015; Babuder, 2016; Setati & Nkosi, 2017). Based on 
the findings of these studies, mentors expect their 
mentees to show willingness to work and respect 
the principles of morality, ethics and humanity. They 
want their mentees to show initiative and eagerness to 
explore new areas in health care, and they see their 
role as equally important to a successful mentoring 
experience (Jokelainen et al., 2013; Babuder, 2016; 
Setati & Nkosi, 2017). Other studies (Collier, 2018; 
Brown et al., 2020) also show that mentees cite 
mentor's backing and support, their interest in 
mentoring and willingness to include mentees in the 
daily work process as desirable qualities of mentors. In 
addition, they also emphasise the need for the mentor 
to be approachable as a prerequisite for the mentee's 
active engagement in the process. 
In terms of spoken interaction, both mentors 
and mentees initially prefer addressing each other 
formally (using the formal 'you' in Slovenian, i.e. 
vikanje). As the mentoring process progresses, both 
mentors and mentees are willing to switch to a more 
informal form of communication (using the informal 
'you' in Slovenian, i.e. tikanje). In another study in 
this area conducted in Slovenia, Babuder (2016) 
reports that none of the groups interviewed agreed 
with mutual informality in spoken interaction, which 
contrasts with the findings of our study. Our findings 
also show positive attitudes of mentors and mentees 
towards appropriate physical touch, such as shaking 
hands at the first meeting or when a task has been well 
done. Female mentees in particular admitted to being 
cautious about being physically touched by a male 
mentor due to previous experiences. As indicated 
by Hill & Laguado (2019), a physical touch is only 
appropriate if a safe environment has been created 
in which the person feels comfortable. Before acting, 
mentors need to assess the appropriateness of their 
words or touch for a given situation. In a study by 
Kim et al. (2018), participants pointed out that neither 
school nor clinical practice had taught them how to 
prevent or protect themselves from inappropriate 
physical touch. This indicates that students and staff 
need additional training in this area.
The results of our study highlight four common 
key factors for mentors and mentees: personality 
traits of the mentor and mentee, setting boundaries 
in the interpersonal relationship, differences in the 
relationship depending on the domain of clinical 
practice, and time devoted to building the interpersonal 
relationship. Other studies highlighting personality 
traits as a factor in interpersonal relationships 
(Babuder, 2016; Collier, 2018; Pramila-Savukoski et 
al., 2020) also note the importance of approachability, 
self-confidence, enjoyment of work, honesty, openness, 
mutual respect, caring, accountability and reliability.
The importance of setting boundaries between the 
mentor and the mentee has also been highlighted by 
Brown et al. (2020) and Launer (2013). They emphasise 
the importance of friendliness and collegiality as well 
as professionalism with clearly defined boundaries. 
These characteristics include a focus on mentoring and 
the needs and requirements for a successful process. 
Establishing clear boundaries and flexible ground 
rules allow for a clear, harmonious, and cooperative 
relationship between the mentor and the mentee 
(Davey, Henshall, & Jackson, 2020). 
The conditions of the clinical setting and the specific 
domain of clinical placement have been identified as 
factors influencing interpersonal relationships also in 
other studies (Bisholt, Ohlsson, Engström, Johansson, 
& Gustafsson, 2014; Setati & Nkosi, 2017). Clinical 
practice in hospitals has been found important on 
account of the variety of tasks involved and non-
routine work (Bisholt et al., 2014). The atmosphere and 
spirit of collaboration within the team have also been 
highlighted, as mentoring is a shared responsibility 
of the staff. Working conditions and relationships 
influence mentees' satisfaction and engagement in the 
work process (Setati & Nkosi, 2017). 
An important factor influencing the interpersonal 
relationship between the mentor and mentee is also 
the time they spend together. In the literature (Foster 
et al., 2015; Joubert & de Villiers, 2015; Nowell, 
Norris, Mrklas, & White, 2017; Setati & Nkosi, 2017), 
the time factor has been highlighted from different 
perspectives. Some studies conclude that due to their 
workload, mentors have too little time to build an 
adequate relationship with their mentees (Joubert & 
15Nastran, A., Praprotnik, D., Renko, J., Ličen, S., & Prosen, M. (2023)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 57(1), pp. 8–23.
de Villiers, 2015). It is important that mentors have 
enough time for mentoring in order to meet their 
mentees' expectations in this area (Nowell et al., 2017). 
If the mentor does not spend enough time with the 
mentee, it is more difficult to constructively evaluate 
the mentee's progress or provide feedback on the areas 
needing improvement (Foster et al., 2015). In addition, 
the achievement of goals and degree of familiarisation 
with a specific area of nursing is influenced by the 
duration of clinical practice, which is usually time-
limited (Setati & Nkosi, 2017). 
One of the limitations of our study is that its findings 
are confined to the Slovenian cultural space. In future 
research, it would be beneficial to include students 
from other faculties and mentors from the wider 
Slovenian environment and other professional fields. 
Recruitment of participants for this study was made 
difficult due to the situation surrounding the SARS-
CoV-19 pandemic. 
Our study provides an insight into the mentor-
mentee relationship from the perspective of both 
the mentor and the mentee and identifies obstacles 
and opportunities to improve the mentoring process 
(proactivity of the mentee, appropriate duration of 
the placement, suitable working conditions, etc.). It 
also highlights some factors (setting boundaries in 
interpersonal relationships, area of clinical practice, 
mentee's faculty-allocated workload) to which the 
participants should pay special attention in order to 
build a quality relationship and perform their work 
competently.
Conclusion
In clinical placements, the interpersonal relationship 
between the mentor and mentee is important to 
ensure quality education that produces competent 
nursing professionals. In this process, mentors need 
to be aware of their duty to impart knowledge, while 
mentees need to be aware of their duty to actively 
engage in acquiring knowledge and professional 
skills they will need in their work. Such an attitude 
can facilitate appropriate professional socialisation of 
nursing students grounded in quality care for patients. 
We suggest that improvements be made in further 
research to address the limitations mentioned, e.g. 
including more participants from different fields of 
practice. It would also be worthwhile to conduct an 
in-depth investigation into how the SARS-CoV-19 
pandemic has affected interpersonal relationships in 
clinical practice. We suggest that in-depth qualitative 
and quantitative research be conducted to examine 
different factors from several angles and to define 
the most important ones in more detail. We also 
recommend conducting research that looks into 
individual factors (e.g. personality traits, setting 
boundaries in interpersonal relationships, time spent 
on building interpersonal relationships) that influence 
the interpersonal relationship between the mentor 
and the mentee respectively. A combined examination 
of both aspects is too extensive and prevents 
researchers from gaining a deeper understanding of 
the phenomenon.
Slovenian translation/Prevod v slovenščino
Uvod
Cilj izobraževanja v zdravstveni negi je izobraziti 
študente tako, da bodo pred vstopom v poklic dosegli 
potrebno strokovno raven kompetenc (Immonen 
et al., 2019). Izobraževanje medicinskih sester je 
temelj usposobljene in kompetentne delovne sile 
v zdravstveni negi. Velik del tega je zagotavljanje 
kakovostnih izobraževalnih procesov. Eden od 
standardov kliničnega poučevanja je, da klinično 
okolje zagotavlja varno in podporno okolje s 
primernim številom ustrezno usposobljenega in 
izkušenega osebja (World Health Organization. 
Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean, 2015). 
Klinični mentorji imajo zelo pomembno vlogo pri 
podpori in ocenjevanju študentov zdravstvene nege 
med praktičnim usposabljanjem. Mentor je pri tem 
opredeljen kot strokovnjak iz prakse, ki olajša učenje 
ter nadzoruje in ocenjuje študente v vadbenem okolju 
(Brown, Jones, & Davies, 2020).
Kompetenten mentor je sposoben vzpostaviti 
spodbudno klinično učno okolje, olajšati učenje, 
spremljati napredek študenta, oceniti klinične 
kompetence študentov in jim podati učinkovite 
povratne informacije. Med klinično prakso zagotavlja 
konstruktivne povratne informacije in ne dovoljuje 
nadaljevanja slabih praks (Immonen et al., 2019). 
Mentorji za kakovostno opravljanje svoje naloge 
potrebujejo določene osebnostne lastnosti, stališča, 
vrednote, motivacijo, vključenost, zadovoljstvo, 
sposobnost reševanja problemov in predanost svojemu 
delu (Pramila-Savukoski et al., 2020). 
Medtem ko mora mentor študentu pomagati s 
svojimi bogatimi izkušnjami in praktičnim znanjem, 
je študentova naloga, da v klinično okolje prinaša 
nova, sveža znanja in dognanja v zdravstveni negi. 
Pomembno je tudi, da so mentoriranci sposobni 
samostojnega razmišljanja, da so zanesljivi, odgovorni 
in imajo spoštljiv odnos do drugih (Babuder, 2016). 
Med prakso morajo ne le dokazati teoretično znanje, 
temveč pokazati tudi izboljšanje lastnih raziskovalnih 
veščin, kritično razmišljanje, samospoštovanje, 
samostojno sprejemanje odločitev in učinkovito 
medosebno komuniciranje (Günay & Kılınç, 2018).
Praksa v kliničnem okolju študente zanima, saj 
so postavljeni v realno situacijo, s čimer pridobijo 
dragocene izkušnje. Učenje v klinični praksi lahko 
poteka le, če se mentoriranci počutijo varne in so v 
pozitivnem učnem okolju. Za študente je bistveno, 
16 Nastran, A., Praprotnik, D., Renko, J., Ličen, S., & Prosen, M. (2023)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 57(1), pp. 8–23.
da so videni in slišani, da imajo prilagojeno delovno 
obremenitev in da imajo občutek, da niso sami pri 
izvajanju intervencij. Z ustvarjanjem pozitivnega 
in zaupanja vrednega okolja se lahko mentoriranci 
učijo in se približajo svoji vlogi bodoče medicinske 
sestre, s čimer se zmanjša zaskrbljenost glede 
prihodnosti. Komunikacija med mentorjem in 
mentorirancem je izrednega pomena za vzpostavitev 
zaupanja in ustvarjanje vloge delegiranja in vodenja 
med izobraževanjem v zdravstveni negi (Jeppesen, 
Christiansen, & Frederiksen, 2017). 
Babuder (2016) je v slovenskem kontekstu ugotovil 
razlike v dojemanju medosebnega odnosa med 
mentorjem in mentorirancem ter njihovih lastnosti in 
vrlin. Kot ključna dejavnika tega odnosa je prepoznal 
komunikacijo in medsebojno spoštovanje, medtem ko 
se je starost izkazala za neodvisen dejavnik. Ugotovil 
je, da mentorji od mentoriranca pričakujejo spoštljiv 
odnos in zavedanje njihovih obveznosti v času 
mentoriranja. Mentoriranci pa izpostavljajo mentorjev 
čas, organiziranost, dostopnost in kreativnost pri 
vodenju mentoriranja. Joubert & de Villiers (2015) sta 
predhodno ugotovila, da so pomembni dejavniki, ki 
vplivajo na medosebni odnos, razporeditev mentorjev 
in mentorirancev na posamezna področja, prisotnost 
in usposobljenost mentorja v kliničnem okolju 
ter zaupen odnos. Izpostavila sta, da so potrebne 
spremembe za izboljšanje strukture programa 
mentorstva. Predhodne raziskave v tej smeri kažejo na 
vrzel v znanju na področju razumevanja značilnosti 
in dejavnikov, ki opredeljujejo medosebni odnos 
med mentorjem in mentorirancem, ter potrebo po 
podrobnejšem preučevanju (Dobrowolska et al., 2016; 
Nickitas, Villegas-Pantoja, & Jones, 2016; Nelson et 
al., 2018), kar je bilo tudi raziskovalno vodilo v tej 
raziskavi.
Namen in cilji
Namen raziskave je bil preučiti in raziskati 
medosebne odnose med mentorji in mentoriranci 
zdravstvene nege ter ugotoviti, kateri dejavniki vplivajo 
nanje. Cilji raziskave je bil ugotoviti, kakšen pomen 
mentorji in mentoriranci pripisujejo medosebnim 
odnosom ter kaj vpliva na odnose med mentorjem 
in mentorirancem. Oblikovani sta bili naslednji 
raziskovalni vprašanji:
– Kako mentorji in mentoriranci doživljajo njihove 
medosebne odnose?
– Kateri dejavniki krojijo medosebni odnos med 
mentorji in mentoriranci? 
Metode
Uporabljena sta bila kvalitativna metoda in 
deskriptivno-interpretativni dizajn. Slednji omogoča, da 
problem spoznamo z vidika udeleženih posameznikov, 
torej mentorjev in mentorirancev zdravstvene nege, ter 
nam pomaga izluščiti ugotovitve, ki so odraz dejanskih 
izkušenj (Smythe, 2012).
Opis instrumenta
Vodič po intervjuju in tematski vodič za fokusno 
skupino sta bila zasnovana po vnaprej pripravljenih 
vodilnih vprašanjih, ki so bila razvita na podlagi 
ciljev raziskave. Prvi izveden intervju je bil pilotni. Z 
njim smo preverjali ustreznost vprašalnika, ki je bila 
skladna z namenom in cilji raziskave.
Intervju za mentorje je obsegal naslednja vodilna 
vprašanja: Ali ste bili deležni izobraževanja za 
mentoriranje? Ali se na mentoriranje pripravite? Kako 
vidite lastno vlogo in vlogo mentoriranca v procesu 
mentoriranja? Kakšen odnos želite vzpostaviti z 
mentorirancem? Ali obstajajo dejavniki, ki vplivajo na 
odnos med vami in mentorirancem? Kako v odnosu 
z mentorirancem postavite meje v odnosu? Kako v 
odnosu z mentorirancem doživljate fizični dotik? Ali 
se vam zdi, da imate dovolj časa za uspešno opravljeno 
mentoriranje? 
Intervju za mentorirance v fokusnih skupinah 
je obsegal naslednja vodilna vprašanja: Kako 
vidite lastno vlogo in vlogo mentorja v procesu 
mentoriranja? Katere lastnosti se vam zdijo potrebne 
pri dobrem mentorju? Kakšen odnos želite vzpostaviti 
z mentorjem? Ali obstajajo dejavniki, ki vplivajo na 
odnos med vami in mentorjem? Kako v odnosu z 
mentorjem vidite medosebne meje v odnosu? Kako 
v odnosu z mentorjem doživljate fizični dotik? Ali 
menite, da si mentorji za vas vzamejo dovolj časa?
Opis vzorca
Uporabljen je bil namenski vzorec diplomiranih 
medicinskih sester, ki so mentorice študentom na 
kliničnih usposabljanjih, ter študentov dodiplomskega 
študija zdravstvene nege z dveh zdravstvenih fakultet 
v Sloveniji. Za razumevanje medosebnih odnosov v 
procesu kliničnega usposabljanja z vidika mentorjev 
smo vključili dve diplomirani medicinski sestri in dva 
diplomirana zdravstvenika, ki so mentorji v različnih 
kliničnih okoljih in na različnih ravneh zdravstva. 
Povprečna delovna doba, ki so jo kot mentorji preživeli 
v kliničnem okolju, je 11,5 leta. Dva sta bila deležna 
izobraževanja za mentorje, dva pa se izobraževanja 
nista udeležila. Za mentorstvo so se odločili zaradi 
notranje želje po predajanju znanja, kar vidijo tudi 
kot svojo delovno obvezo in dolžnost do prihajajočega 
kadra. Za razumevanje medosebnih odnosov z vidika 
mentorirancev smo v raziskavo vključili osem študentov 
dodiplomskega študija zdravstvene nege, štiri ženske in 
štiri moške. Ena sodelujoča je obiskovala prvi letnik, 
pet jih je obiskovalo drugi letnik in dva tretji letnik. Vsi 
so že opravili vsaj eno klinično usposabljanje. 
Izvedeni so bili štirje individualni intervjuji z 
mentorji in dve fokusni skupini, pri čemer so v vsaki 
17Nastran, A., Praprotnik, D., Renko, J., Ličen, S., & Prosen, M. (2023)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 57(1), pp. 8–23.
sodelovali štirje študenti. Zasičenost podatkov smo 
zasledili že po dveh individualnih intervjujih in 
obeh fokusnih skupinah. Značilno je, da ta nastopi, 
ko novopridobljeni podatki ne prispevajo več k 
dodatnemu pojasnjevanju kategorij (Vogrinc, 2008). 
Kljub temu so se avtorji odločili, da z zbiranjem 
podatkov nadaljujejo, dokler ne dosežejo visoke 
stopnje nasičenosti opisa preučevanega fenomena. 
Opis poteka raziskave in obdelave podatkov
Sodelujoči so bili povabljeni k sodelovanju v raziskavi 
po osebnih poznanstvih in nadalje po metodi snežne 
kepe. Podatke smo zbrali na vzorcu mentorjev z 
individualnimi, delno strukturiranimi intervjuji in 
na vzorcu mentorirancev s fokusnim intervjujem. 
Pred intervjujem smo jim razložili namene in cilje 
raziskave ter se glede na njihovo razpoložljivost 
prilagodili za termin intervjuja in fokusnih skupin. 
Zaradi upoštevanja etičnih načel raziskovanja so vsi 
sodelujoči pred izvedbo intervjujev in fokusnih skupin 
podpisali t. i. informirano soglasje za sodelovanje 
v raziskavi, v katerem so bili obrazloženi nameni in 
cilji raziskave, potek, tveganja in koristi, predvideno 
trajanje intervjuja, zaupnost podatkov in prostovoljno 
sodelovanje ter možnost prekinitve intervjuja na 
kateri koli točki. Pred pričetkom intervjujev smo jih 
ponovno obvestili o snemanju pogovora.
Raziskavo smo izvedli decembra 2021. Po končanih 
srečanjih smo izvedli transkripcijo posnetkov, pri 
čemer so izjave udeležencev slovnično popravljene, 
a so vsebinsko ostale nespremenjene. Sledilo 
je večkratno branje z ustvarjanjem zaznamkov, 
pomembnih za raziskavo. Za obdelavo podatkov smo 
uporabili metodo analize vsebine po Yinu (2010): 
(1) sestavljanje besedila; (2) razstavljanje besedila – 
kodiranje; (3) sestavljanje besedila – združevanje v 
večje pomenske enote; (4) interpretacija rezultatov; 
(5) konceptualizacija preučevanega fenomena. 
Zagotovljena je bila triangulacija podatkov s 
pregledano literaturo, izvedenimi individualnimi 
intervjuji z mentorji in fokusnimi skupinami z 
mentoriranci. Poleg tega je bila zagotovljena tudi 
triangulacija raziskovalcev, saj je bila vsebina 
pregledana in usklajena s strani treh raziskovalcev 
ter sprejet končni vsebinski koncept. To je omogočilo 
verodostojnost podatkov in boljše razumevanje 
preučevanega fenomena. 
Rezultati
Tako pri mentorjih kot pri mentorirancih smo 
identificirali osrednjo temo, ki smo jo poimenovali 
»medosebni odnos mentor – mentoriranec«. 
Razdeljena je bila na dve podtemi: »značilnosti 
medosebnega odnosa mentor – mentoriranec« 
in »dejavniki medosebnega odnosa mentor – 
mentoriranec«. Tematski koncept prikazuje Tabela 1.
Značilnosti medosebnega odnosa med mentorjem 
in mentorirancem
V nadaljevanju predstavljamo tako mentorjev kot 
mentorirančev vidik glede značilnosti njunega odnosa. 
Izpostavljene so ugotovitve o njunih osebnih stališčih 
o mentoriranju, vlogi mentorja, vlogi mentoriranca 
in ostalih ključnih elementih podteme »značilnosti 
medosebnega odnosa mentor – mentoriranec«. 
Vsi mentorji so svojo vlogo opredelili kot predajanje 
znanja, spoznavanje študenta z določenim področjem, 
spodbujanje in oporo študentu in reševanje morebitnih 
konfliktov znotraj mentoriranja.
Svojo vlogo vidim v tem, da študentu poskušam 
približati vidik, kako je to v praksi. Da začuti, kakšno je 
to okolje in kakšna je dinamika dela. (Mentor 1)
Cilj je, da ga spoznam s tem področjem, mu nudim 
oporo, znam opazovati njegova čustva, pričakovanja, 
motivacijo, stiske, ki jih ima. Moja vloga kliničnega 
mentorja je, da vedno poiščem priložnosti, kjer ga 
vključim. Kadar odnos ni produktiven, je napet ali 
celo neprofesionalen, takrat moramo mi kot klinični 
mentorji prevzeti soodgovornost. (Mentor 2)
Mentorji vlogo mentoriranca vidijo kot enako 
pomembno pri uspešnem medosebnem odnosu v 
procesu mentoriranja. Zato imajo mentorji določena 
pričakovanja do mentorirancev, kot so želja do dela in 
učenja, spoznavanje področja in samoiniciativnost.
Pomembna je ta pripravljenost, življenjska 
naravnanost do dela. Študent mora biti z enim 
občutkom, da se primerno obnaša. (Mentor 3)
Vlogo študenta vidim v tem, da uživajo, si želijo 
znanja, raziskujejo, veliko sprašujejo. (Mentor 4)
Ni potrebno, da so navdušeni, da neprestano nekaj 
sprašujejo. /…/ Da je samoiniciativen. Tako je tudi 
vloga med mentorjem in mentorirancem interaktivna, 
je bolj produktivna in oba imata v tem odnosu več od 
tega. (Mentor 2)
Mentoriranci vlogo mentorja vidijo kot vodilno 
vlogo. Doživljajo ga kot nekoga, ki vodi učni proces, 
in kot nekoga, na katerega lahko računajo. Mnenja so 
bila deljena glede tega, ali mora biti mentor ves čas 
ob mentorirancu ali ne. Svojo vlogo pa mentoriranci 
vidijo v tem, da se dejavno vključujejo v proces, 
pokažejo zanimanje in pripravljenost do dela. Želijo 
si, da se mentorji zavzamejo zanje, da jim niso zgolj v 
breme, jim zaupajo in jih sprejmejo medse.
Mislim, da mora vodilno vlogo prevzeti mentor, on 
mora biti tisti, ki ti da delo, ki ti razkaže oddelek, ker 
je on tisti, na katerega se lahko zaneseš, on te uči novih 
stvari. (Mentoriranec 5)
Vlogo kot študent vidim v tem, da se potrudim in 
se vključujem v sam proces, ko sem na vajah, in da 
pokažem neko zanimanje, da pridem pripravljena. 
(Mentoriranec 4)
Meni je pomembno, koliko se zavzame in zaupa vate. 
(Mentoriranec 7)
Mentoriranci upoštevajo osnovna načela bontona 
18 Nastran, A., Praprotnik, D., Renko, J., Ličen, S., & Prosen, M. (2023)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 57(1), pp. 8–23.
Ta
be
la
 1
: S
he
m
at
ičn
i p
rik
az
 te
m
, p
od
te
m
 te
r k
od
 m
en
to
rje
v 
in
 m
en
to
rir
an
ce
v
Te
m
a
Po
dt
em
e
K
od
e
K
od
e
Po
dt
em
e
Te
m
a
Vi
di
k 
m
en
to
ri
ra
nc
ev
Vi
di
k 
m
en
to
rj
ev
M
ed
os
eb
ni
 
od
no
s m
en
to
r –
 
m
en
to
rir
an
ec
Zn
ač
iln
os
ti 
m
ed
os
eb
ne
ga
 
od
no
sa
 m
en
to
r –
 
m
en
to
rir
an
ec
O
se
bn
a 
st
al
išč
a 
o 
m
en
to
rir
an
ju
St
al
išč
a 
do
 p
rip
ra
ve
 n
a 
m
en
to
rs
ko
 v
lo
go
Zn
ač
iln
os
ti 
m
ed
os
eb
ne
ga
 
od
no
sa
 m
en
to
r–
 
m
en
to
rir
an
ec
M
ed
os
eb
ni
 
od
no
s m
en
to
r –
 
m
en
to
rir
an
ec
M
en
to
rir
an
če
v 
vi
di
k 
vl
og
e 
m
en
to
rja
M
en
to
rje
v 
vi
di
k 
vl
og
e 
m
en
to
rja
M
en
to
rir
an
če
v 
vi
di
k 
vl
og
e 
m
en
to
rir
an
ca
M
en
to
rje
v 
vi
di
k 
vl
og
e 
m
en
to
rir
an
ca
Že
le
ne
 la
st
no
st
i m
en
to
rja
Pr
ič
ak
ov
an
ja
 v
 m
ed
os
eb
ne
m
 o
dn
os
u
Že
le
n 
m
ed
os
eb
ni
 o
dn
os
O
vi
re
 m
en
to
rja
 p
ri 
m
en
to
rir
an
ju
Ko
m
un
ik
ac
ija
 zn
ot
ra
j m
ed
os
eb
ne
ga
 o
dn
os
a
Ko
m
un
ik
ac
ija
 zn
ot
ra
j m
ed
os
eb
ne
ga
 o
dn
os
a
O
dn
os
 d
o 
fiz
ič
ne
ga
 d
ot
ik
a 
v 
m
ed
os
eb
ne
m
 
od
no
su
O
dn
os
 d
o 
fiz
ič
ne
ga
 d
ot
ik
a 
v 
m
ed
os
eb
ne
m
 
od
no
su
D
ož
iv
lja
nj
e 
in
 iz
ku
šn
je
 m
en
to
rir
an
ca
 v
 p
ra
ks
i
Ra
zl
og
i z
a 
ne
za
do
vo
ljs
tv
o 
m
en
to
rir
an
ce
v 
s 
kl
in
ič
ni
m
 u
sp
os
ab
lja
nj
em
Pr
ed
lo
gi
 za
 iz
bo
ljš
an
je
 k
lin
ič
ne
 p
ra
ks
e
Re
še
va
nj
e 
ko
nfl
ik
to
v 
v 
m
ed
os
eb
ne
m
 o
dn
os
u
D
ej
an
sk
o 
in
 že
le
no
 iz
ob
ra
že
va
nj
e 
m
en
to
rje
v
So
de
lo
va
nj
e 
s f
ak
ul
te
to
 p
ri 
or
ga
ni
za
ci
ji 
kl
in
ič
ne
ga
 u
sp
os
ab
lja
nj
a 
za
 m
en
to
rir
an
ce
D
ej
av
ni
ki
 
m
ed
os
eb
ne
ga
 
od
no
sa
 m
en
to
r –
 
m
en
to
rir
an
ec
O
se
bn
os
tn
e 
la
st
no
st
i m
en
to
rja
 in
 
m
en
to
rir
an
ca
O
se
bn
os
tn
e 
la
st
no
st
i m
en
to
rja
 in
 
m
en
to
rir
an
ca
D
ej
av
ni
ki
 
m
ed
os
eb
ne
ga
 
od
no
sa
 m
en
to
r –
 
m
en
to
rir
an
ec
Po
st
av
lja
nj
e 
m
ej
 v
 m
ed
os
eb
ne
m
 o
dn
os
u
Po
st
av
lja
nj
e 
m
ej
 v
 m
ed
os
eb
ne
m
 o
dn
os
u
Č
as
, n
am
en
je
n 
vz
po
st
av
lja
nj
u 
m
ed
os
eb
ne
ga
 
od
no
sa
Č
as
, n
am
en
je
n 
vz
po
st
av
lja
nj
u 
m
ed
os
eb
ne
ga
 
od
no
sa
Ra
zl
ik
e 
v 
od
no
su
 g
le
de
 n
a 
po
dr
oč
je
 k
lin
ič
ne
ga
 
us
po
sa
bl
ja
nj
a
Ra
zl
ik
e 
v 
od
no
su
 g
le
de
 n
a 
po
dr
oč
je
 k
lin
ič
ne
ga
 
us
po
sa
bl
ja
nj
a
Sa
m
oi
ni
ci
at
iv
no
st
 m
en
to
rir
an
ca
 v
 k
lin
ič
ne
m
 
ok
ol
ju
O
br
em
en
itv
e 
m
en
to
rir
an
ca
 s 
st
ra
ni
 fa
ku
lte
te
Št
ev
ilo
 m
en
to
rir
an
ce
v 
na
 m
en
to
rja
 v
 
kl
in
ič
ne
m
 o
ko
lju
Vp
liv
 d
el
ov
ne
ga
 o
ko
lja
 n
a 
m
en
to
rs
ki
 p
ro
ce
s
Vp
liv
 »
do
br
eg
a«
 in
 »
sla
be
ga
 d
ne
« 
m
en
to
rja
 in
 
m
en
to
rir
an
ca
Pr
vi
 st
ik
 m
en
to
rja
 z 
m
en
to
rir
an
ce
m
V
lo
ga
 sp
ol
a 
v 
m
en
to
rs
ke
m
 o
dn
os
u
Pr
ič
ak
ov
an
ja
 m
en
to
rir
an
ca
19Nastran, A., Praprotnik, D., Renko, J., Ličen, S., & Prosen, M. (2023)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 57(1), pp. 8–23.
in mentorje vikajo, dokler jim ti ne rečejo drugače. 
Menijo, da s tem izkazujejo osnovno spoštovanje in 
upoštevajo nadrejeno vlogo mentorja.
Na začetku mentorja vedno vikam, tikati ga začnem 
samo, če mi on tako reče. Če mi nič ne reče, ga celo 
prakso vikam. /…/ Ne moreš nadrejenega tikati, če ti 
drugače ne reče. (Mentoriranec 8)
Mentorji so večinoma povedali, da dajejo na začetku 
odnosa v govorni komunikaciji prednost vikanju. 
Pozneje se v procesu mentoriranja na podlagi razvitega 
odnosa z mentorirancem mnogi odločijo za tikanje, če 
mentorirancu to ustreza. Sicer pa vsi menijo, da je to 
individualna odločitev vsakega mentorja na podlagi 
odnosa. 
Ni to neko pravilo, vsak mentor se po svoje odloči. Jaz 
opažam, da se mi zdi vikanje boljše. Odvisno tudi od 
študenta. Proti koncu rečem, /…/ lahko se tudi tikava. 
(Mentor 3)
V okviru neverbalne komunikacije mentorji 
zagovarjajo uporabo primernega fizičnega dotika 
z vidika rokovanja ob prvem stiku, izkazovanja 
pohval, pritegnitve pozornosti, izvajanja intervencij 
v zdravstveni negi. Zaradi pandemije virusa SARS-
Cov-19 se je dojemanje dotika še dodatno spremenilo; 
meja primernega in zaželenega je še bolj zabrisana. 
Mentorji se strinjajo, da je kakršen koli neprimeren 
dotik, odnos, ki bi se ga lahko interpretiralo kot 
spolno nadlegovanje, nedopusten. Med dejavniki 
omejevanja fizičnega stika ni bil izpostavljen spol, 
temveč osebnostne lastnosti mentoriranca ter njegovo 
dojemanje in sprejemanje fizičnega dotika. Eden 
izmed mentorjev je izpostavil, da spol igra vlogo v 
odnosu, vendar le zaradi bioloških razlik med spoli. 
V zadnjih dveh letih je s tem dotikom tako čudno. 
/…/ Rad se dotaknem, ko se rokujem, ali pa, ko 
nekoga potrepljam po rami, ko ga želim samo nekaj 
zmotiti, opomniti, ko razlagam, nujno nekaj rabim, 
to ni problem. /…/ Morda, če je na praksi fant, mu 
rečem, da je bolj primeren za nek oddelek, kjer je veliko 
dvigovanja. (Mentor 4)
Vedno lahko prestopimo mejo, pa ne samo z dotikom, 
tudi z besedami, odnosom, ko se študent lahko počuti 
neprijetno, v stiski, če ne celo spolno nadlegovan. 
(Mentor 2)
Mentoriranci se glede fizičnega dotika v veliki 
meri strinjajo z mentorji. Naklonjeni so primernemu 
fizičnemu dotiku, ki ne vzbuja občutkov spolnega 
nadlegovanja. Pri tem prihaja do razlik v pojmovanju 
glede na spol mentorirancev, saj ženske spol 
izpostavljajo kot dejavnik, ki vpliva na doživljanje 
fizičnega dotika. Oboji pa se večinoma strinjajo, da na 
doživljanje bolj vpliva osebnost. 
Zdi se mi prav, da ob srečanju daš roko v pozdrav. Tudi 
ob dobro opravljeni intervenciji, ko ti nekaj uspe, lahko 
narediš petko ali kepico. Če se te v prostem času dotika po 
hrbtu ali kakor koli od zadaj, kar nekateri delajo, ne, to ni 
pravilen, dovoljen dotik. (Mentoriranec 2)
Meni ni isto, ali mi moški ali ženska potreplja ramo. 
(Mentoriranec 8)
Sama vseeno mislim, da je odvisno od same osebe, 
kako je ona naučena. Bolj kot spol je pomembno, kakšna 
je oseba. (Mentoriranec 4)
Dejavniki medosebnega odnosa mentor – 
mentoriranec 
Tako mentorji kot mentoriranci so kot dejavnik, 
ki vpliva na njihov medosebni odnos, identificirali 
osebnostne lastnosti. Mednje so uvrstili posameznikovo 
doživljanje situacij, karakter, sposobnost spodbujanja 
zanimanja, iskrenost, spoštljivost in pričakovanja 
posameznika.
Glavni dejavniki, ki vplivajo na odnos, so zagotovo 
osebnostne in karakterne lastnosti posameznika. 
(Mentor 2).
Da pokažeš, da nekaj že znaš, kar ne znaš, pa da 
priznaš. (Mentoriranec 1)
Od odnosa se mi zdi pomemben prvi pristop, kako 
mentor sebe predstavi. (Mentoriranec 4)
Oboji so pri zagotavljanju produktivnega odnosa 
izpostavili tudi pomembnost postavljanja in 
upoštevanja določenih mej, ki so ali spontano ali 
namerno postavljene. Nekateri mentorji jih postavljajo 
individualno, drugi jih ne prilagajajo posamezniku. 
Želijo si, da so te meje postavljene na primeren, 
strokoven in konstruktiven način, čeprav je to včasih 
zahtevno.
Za meje mislim, da so že kar naravno postavljene. 
(Mentor 3)
Mislim, da so te meje tako subjektivne in individualne, 
da izhajajo predvsem iz tega, kakšen medosebni odnos 
imata mentor in študent. /…/ Tam, kjer so težave, 
pa nastopi problem, na kakšen način postaviti meje 
oziroma kako rešiti konfliktne situacije. (Mentor 2)
Skozi delo pa vidiš, ali se malo poheca, da recimo 
ni striktno strokoven. Na podlagi tega se potem lahko 
oceni tudi, kakšne so meje. (Mentoriranec 4)
Tako mentorji kot mentoriranci so kot dejavnika, ki 
vplivata na medosebni odnos in kakovost mentoriranja, 
izpostavili področje kliničnega usposabljanja in samo 
klinično okolje – z vidika interesa za posamezno 
področje in glede na to, kakšni so odnosi, razmere 
in pogoji za delo v kliničnem okolju, kamor prihajajo 
mentoriranci. 
Zagotovo je dejavnik tudi področje kliničnega 
usposabljanja, motivacija, koliko študenta neko 
področje zanima. /…/ Tudi kakšna je posamezna učna 
baza, ali slovi po tem, da je tam zanimivo in prijetno 
opravljati klinično usposabljanje. (Mentor 2)
Odvisno tudi od oddelka, kako se ljudje na oddelku 
obnašajo. Ali se dobro razumejo ali ne. (Mentoriranec 
5)
Kot skupen dejavnik je bil pri mentorjih in 
mentorirancih izpostavljen tudi čas, namenjen 
vzpostavljanju medosebnega odnosa. Mentorji si želijo, 
20 Nastran, A., Praprotnik, D., Renko, J., Ličen, S., & Prosen, M. (2023)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 57(1), pp. 8–23.
da bi za študijski proces imeli več časa, vendar lahko 
to kompenzirajo s pravilno organizacijo. Mentoriranci 
menijo, da mentorji pogosto nimajo dovolj časa zanje. 
Tako mentorji kot mentoriranci menijo, da lahko z 
daljšim kliničnim usposabljanjem vzpostavijo boljše 
odnose in se več naučijo. 
Časa je dovolj, če si ga pravilno razporediš /…/. 
Daljša kot je praksa, boljši odnos se bo razvil, študent 
bo pridobil več samostojnosti, kompetenc. (Mentor 2)
Meni se zdi, da so bili mentorji večinoma zelo 
zaposleni. Bili so večinoma vodje oddelka in posledično 
zame niso imeli časa. Zato me je dal drugi sestri, naj me 
ona vodi in uči. (Mentoriranec 4)
Nekateri mentoriranci so med dejavniki, ki vplivajo 
na medosebni odnos, izpostavili število mentorirancev 
v kliničnem okolju. Eden izmed mentorjev pa je 
opozoril, da se zaradi določenih obremenitev s strani 
fakultete zmanjšuje osredotočenost mentorirancev na 
opravljanje nalog na oddelku.
Na praksah, kjer sem bil sam, se je večinoma dalo 
doseči želen odnos. Na praksah, kjer nas je bilo pa 
recimo po deset oziroma smo bili v skupini, pa to ni bilo 
izvedljivo. (Mentoriranec 5)
Dodatne aktivnosti in obremenitve s strani fakultete, 
kot so negovalne dokumentacije, analize člankov 
in podobno. Te dejavnosti v določen delu študentu 
odvrnejo pozornost od samih aktivnosti v kliničnem 
okolju. (Mentor 2)
Prvi stik mentorja z mentorirancem se zdi vsem 
mentorjem zelo pomemben. Opisujejo, kako se 
dinamika na oddelku tisti dan spremeni in kako se 
hkrati veselijo študenta, a se tudi zavedajo velike 
odgovornosti. Dva izmed mentorjev sta izpostavila, da 
na medosebni odnos lahko vpliva tudi dnevna forma v 
smislu počutja tako mentorja kot mentoriranca. Eden 
izmed mentorjev je opazil, da mentoriranci radi vedo, 
kaj se od njih pričakuje.
Zdi se mi pomembno, da so študentje lepo sprejeti, ne 
da potem on cel dan tam sedi in ga nihče ne pogleda. 
/…/ Da je študent ozaveščen vnaprej, kaj se bo dogajalo. 
To vidim, da imajo zelo radi, tudi sprašujejo, da si 
ustvarijo sliko in se razbremenijo negotovosti. (Mentor 
4)
A si ti spočit prišel v službo, ali si utrujen, kakšna je 
tvoja pripravljenost. To subjektivno, ki seveda v določeni 
meri vpliva na odnos. Ali se raje nekam usedeš, da si v 
tišini. (Mentor 3)
Diskusija
Rezultati tako v naši kot v drugih raziskavah 
(Jokelainen, Tossavainen, Jamookeeah, & Turunen, 
2013; Kaihlanen, Lakanmaa, & Salminen, 2013; 
Huggins, 2016; Setati & Nkosi, 2017) so pokazali, 
da mentorji svojo vlogo vidijo kot vlogo učitelja, 
supervizorja in da so mentorirancu med kliničnim 
usposabljanjem v oporo, ga spodbujajo in motivirajo. 
S tem mu omogočijo, da se v potencialnem delovnem 
okolju primerno socializira. Podobne ugotovitve o 
vlogi mentorja so bile izpostavljene tudi pri drugih 
raziskavah, v katerih so navajali, da študenti mentorja 
vidijo kot nekoga, na kogar se lahko zanesejo, se 
obrnejo nanj po znanje in nasvet (Kaihlanen et al., 
2013; Foster, Ooms, & Marks-Maran, 2015; Babuder, 
2016).
Rezultati naše raziskave so pokazali, da mentoriranci 
svojo vlogo vidijo v tem, da se samoiniciativno 
vključujejo in pokažejo pridobljeno znanje, kar od 
njih v drugih raziskavah pričakujejo tudi mentorji 
(Jokelainen et al., 2013; Joubert & de Villiers, 2015; 
Babuder, 2016; Setati & Nkosi, 2017). Ugotovili so, 
da mentorji od mentorirancev pričakujejo, da bodo 
pokazali pripravljenost do dela, načela moralnosti, 
etičnosti in humanosti. Želijo si, da so mentoriranci 
samoiniciativni in si želijo raziskati nova področja 
v zdravstvu, saj njihovo vlogo dojemajo kot enako 
pomembno za uspešno izpeljano mentoriranje 
(Jokelainen et al., 2013; Babuder, 2016; Setati & Nkosi, 
2017).Tudi v drugih raziskavah (Collier, 2018; Brown 
et al., 2020) so mentoriranci kot želene lastnosti 
navedli mentorjevo zagovorništvo mentoriranca, 
izkazovanje interesa mentorjev do mentoriranja in 
vključevanje v dnevni delovni proces. Poleg tega so 
izpostavili tudi, da mora biti mentor dostopen, saj je 
to pogoj za dejavno sodelovanje mentoriranca. 
Z vidika govorne komunikacije dajejo tako mentorji 
kot mentoriranci na začetku prednost vikanju. V 
poznejšem procesu mentoriranja so oboji pripravljeni 
na prehod na tikanje. Babuder (2016) je v svoji 
raziskavi, ki je bila prav tako izvedena v Sloveniji, 
navedel, da medsebojnega pogovornega tikanja ne 
odobrava nihče izmed intervjuvanih skupin, kar 
je v nasprotju z ugotovitvami naše raziskave. Naši 
izsledki so pokazali tudi pozitiven odnos mentorjev 
in mentorirancev do primernega fizičnega dotika, 
kot je na primer rokovanje ob prvem srečanju ali 
dobro opravljeni nalogi. Predvsem mentoriranke so 
priznale, da so zaradi preteklih izkušenj bolj previdne, 
ko fizični dotik izvaja mentor moškega spola. Hill 
& Laguado (2019) sta v raziskavi izpostavila, da je 
treba za primeren fizični dotik ustvariti varno okolje, 
v katerem se posameznik počuti lagodno. Mentorji 
morajo pred dejanjem oceniti primernost besede 
oziroma dotika za dano situacijo. V raziskavi, ki so 
jo izvedli Kim et al. (2018), so sodelujoči izpostavili, 
da jih niti na šoli niti na klinični praksi niso naučili, 
kako preprečiti neprimerne fizične dotike oziroma 
kako se obvarovati pred njimi. To kaže na potrebo po 
dodatnem izobraževanju študentov in zaposlenih na 
tem področju.
Rezultati naše raziskave so tako za mentorje kot za 
mentorirance izpostavili štiri ključne skupne dejavnike: 
osebnostne lastnosti mentorja in mentoriranca, 
postavljanje mej v medosebnem odnosu, razlike v 
odnosu glede na področje kliničnega usposabljanja in 
čas, namenjen vzpostavljanju medosebnega odnosa. 
21Nastran, A., Praprotnik, D., Renko, J., Ličen, S., & Prosen, M. (2023)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 57(1), pp. 8–23.
V raziskavah (Babuder, 2016; Collier, 2018; Pramila-
Savukoski et al., 2020), ki so kot dejavnik medosebnega 
odnosa izpostavili osebnostne lastnosti, so dodatno 
ugotovili pomen dostopnosti, samozavesti, veselja 
do dela, poštenosti, odprtosti, odkritosti, vzajemnega 
spoštovanja, skrbnosti, odgovornosti in zanesljivosti.
Tudi Brown et al. (2020) ter Launer (2013) so 
izpostavili pomembnost postavljanja mej med 
mentorjem in mentorirancem. Ugotovili so pomen 
prijaznosti in kolegialnosti ter istočasne strokovnosti 
z jasno postavljenimi mejami. Te vključujejo 
osredotočenost na mentoriranje ter potrebe in 
zahteve za uspešen proces. Postavitev jasnih mej 
in prilagodljivih osnovnih pravil omogoča jasen, 
usklajen in partnerski odnos med mentorjem in 
mentorirancem (Davey, Henshall, & Jackson, 2020). 
Podobno so tudi druge raziskave (Bisholt, Ohlsson, 
Engström, Johansson, & Gustafsson, 2014; Setati 
& Nkosi, 2017) kot dejavnik medosebnega odnosa 
izpostavile pogoje in področje kliničnega okolja. Prav 
klinične vaje v bolnišnicah so bile zaradi razgibanosti 
nalog in nerutinskega dela ocenjene kot pomembne 
(Bisholt et al., 2014). Izpostavljena sta tudi vzdušje 
in sodelovanje znotraj tima, saj je mentorstvo skupna 
odgovornost osebja. Delovni pogoji in odnosi vplivajo 
na zadovoljstvo in vključevanje mentorirancev v 
proces dela (Setati & Nkosi, 2017). 
Pomemben dejavnik medosebnega odnosa je tudi 
skupno preživet čas mentorja in mentoriranca. V 
raziskavah (Foster et al., 2015; Joubert & de Villiers, 
2015; Nowell, Norris, Mrklas, & White, 2017; 
Setati & Nkosi, 2017) so dejavnik časa izpostavili z 
različnih vidikov. Nekateri so ugotovili, da ga imajo 
mentorji zaradi obsega dela premalo za vzpostavitev 
primernega odnosa (Joubert & de Villiers, 2015). 
Pomembno je, da ima mentor dovolj časa za 
mentorske obveznosti, da bo izpolnjeval pričakovanja 
mentoriranca na tem področju (Nowell et al., 2017). 
Če mentor z mentorirancem ne preživi dovolj časa, 
težje konstruktivno oceni njegov napredek oziroma 
poda povratno informacijo o možnostih za izboljšanje 
(Foster et al., 2015). Poleg tega na doseganje ciljev 
in spoznavanje posameznega področja vpliva tudi 
dolžina vaj, ki je običajno časovno omejena (Setati & 
Nkosi, 2017). 
Omejitve naše raziskave lahko pojasnimo glede 
na kulturno omejenost naših rezultatov na slovenski 
prostor. V raziskavo je smiselno vključiti tudi študente 
drugih fakultet in mentorje iz širšega slovenskega 
okolja in delovnih področji. Zaradi trenutnih 
razmer epidemije SARS-CoV-19 je bilo pridobivanje 
sodelujočih za raziskavo oteženo. 
Z našo raziskavo smo omogočili vpogled v odnos 
tako z vidika mentorja kot mentoriranca ter prikaz 
ovir in priložnosti za izboljšave procesa mentoriranja 
(proaktivnost mentoriranca, ustrezna dolžina vaj, 
primerni delovni pogoji itd.). Izpostavili smo tudi 
nekaj dejavnikov (meje v medosebnem odnosu, 
področje kliničnega usposabljanja, obremenitve 
mentoriranca s strani fakultete), na katere morajo biti 
vključeni pozorni pri gradnji kakovostnega odnosa in 
kompetentnem opravljanju dela.
Zaključek
Medosebni odnos med mentorjem in mentorirancem 
je v procesu kliničnega usposabljanja pomemben za 
vzpostavitev kakovostnega izobraževanja, ki pozneje 
vodi do kompetentnih strokovnjakov na področju 
zdravstvene nege. Mentorji se morajo v samem 
procesu zavedati svoje dolžnosti pri prenašanju 
znanja, mentoriranci pa svoje obveze do dejavnega 
sodelovanja pri pridobivanju znanja in strokovnih 
kompetenc za svoje delo. Le takšen odnos omogoča 
primerno profesionalno socializacijo študentov v 
zdravstveni negi, katere temelj je kakovostna skrb za 
paciente. 
V nadaljnjih raziskavah priporočamo implementacijo 
izboljšav, ki bi odpravile prej omenjene omejitve, 
kot so vključevanje večjega števila sodelujočih z 
več različnih področij prakse. Smiselno bi bilo 
poglobljeno raziskati tudi, kako je epidemija covid-19 
vplivala na medosebne odnose med klinično prakso. 
Predlagamo poglobljene kvalitativne in kvantitativne 
raziskave, saj te izpostavijo različne dejavnike z več 
zornih kotov in najbolj pomembne tudi podrobneje 
opredelijo. Predlagamo tudi raziskave, ki bi posamezne 
dejavnike (npr. osebnostne lastnosti, postavljanje mej 
v medosebnem odnosu, čas, namenjen vzpostavljanju 
medosebnega odnosa), ki vplivajo na medosebni 
odnos med mentorjem in mentorirancem, obravnavale 
individualno. Skupna obravnava je namreč preobsežna 
in onemogoča poglobljeno razumevanje.
Acknowledgements/Zahvala
The authors would like to thank the participants in 
the study for their time and important contribution 
to our work./Avtorji se sodelujočim v raziskavi 
zahvaljujemo za njihov čas in pomemben prispevek k 
našemu delu.
Conflict of interest/Nasprotje interesov
The authors declare that no conflicts of interest 
exist./ Avtorji izjavljajo, da ni nasprotja interesov.
Financiranje/Funding
The study received no funding./Raziskava ni bila 
finančno podprta.
Ethical approval/Etika raziskovanja
The study was conducted in accordance with 
the Helsinki-Tokyo Declaration (World Medical 
22 Nastran, A., Praprotnik, D., Renko, J., Ličen, S., & Prosen, M. (2023)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 57(1), pp. 8–23.
Association, 2013)./Raziskava je pripravljena v skladu 
z načeli Helsinško-tokijske deklaracije (World Medical 
Association, 2013).
Author contributions/Prispevek avtorjev
The first three authors were involved in all parts of 
the study, i.e. in its design, data collection, analysis and 
interpretation of the data, as well as in the drafting, 
critical revision and final approval of the paper. The 
last author was also involved in the interpretation of 
the data. The last two authors collaborated with other 
authors in the conception and design of the study, 
as well as in the critical review and final approval of 
the paper./Prvi trije avtorji so sodelovali v vseh delih 
poteka raziskave: pri zasnovi, pridobivanju, analizi 
dela in interpretaciji podatkov ter tudi pri pripravi, 
kritičnem pregledu in končni odobritvi prispevka. Pri 
interpretaciji podatkov je sodeloval tudi zadnji avtor. 
Zadnja dva avtorja sta z drugimi avtorji sodelovala pri 
zasnovi in oblikovanju dela ter kritičnem pregledu in 
končni odobritvi prispevka.
Literature
Babuder, D. (2016). Lastnosti mentorja in mentoriranca z 
njunih medsebojnih vidikov: opisna raziskava mnenj dijakov, 
študentov in mentorjev. Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 50(4), 
327–335.
https://doi.org/10.14528/snr.2016.50.4.95
Bisholt, B., Ohlsson, U., Engström, A. K., Johansson, A. S., 
& Gustafsson, M. (2014). Nursing students' assessment of 
the learning environment in different clinical settings. Nurse 
Education in Practice, 14(3), 304–310.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2013.11.005
PMid:24355802
Brown, P., Jones, A., & Davies, J. (2020). Shall I tell my mentor: 
Exploring the mentor-student relationship and its impact on 
students' raising concerns on clinical placement. Journal of 
Clinical Nursing, 29(17/18), 3298–3310.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15356
PMid:32478450
Collier, A. D. (2018). Characteristics of an effective nursing 
clinical instructor: The state of the science. Journal of Clinical 
Nursing, 27(1/2), 363–374.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13931
PMid:28618100
Davey, Z., Henshall, C., & Jackson, D. (2020). The value of 
nurse mentoring relationships: Lessons learnt from a work–
based resilience enhancement programme for nurses working 
in the forensic setting. International Journal of Mental Health 
Nursing, 29(5), 992–1001.
https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12739
PMid:32536021
Dobrowolska, B., McGonagle, I., Kane, R., Jackson, C. S., 
Kegl, B., Bergin, M. … Palese, A. (2016). Patterns of clinical 
mentorship in undergraduate nurse education: A comparative 
case analysis of eleven EU and non-EU countries. Nurse 
Education Today, 36, 44–52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2015.07.010
PMid:26254673
Foster, H., Ooms, A., & Marks-Maran, D. (2015). Nursing 
students' expectations and experiences of mentorship. Nurse 
Education Today, 35(1), 18–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2014.04.019
PMid:24835000
Günay, U., & Kılınç, G. (2018). The transfer of theoretical 
knowledge to clinical practice by nursing students and the 
difficulties they experience: A qualitative study. Nurse Education 
Today, 65, 81–86.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.02.031
PMid:29547811
Hill, L. G., & Laguado, S. A. (2019). Guidance for male mentors 
to support the safety and success of female mentees. American 
Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 83(10), Article 7533.
https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7533
PMid:32001886; PMCid:PMC6983898
Huggins, D. (2016). Enhancing nursing students' education by 
coaching mentors. Nursing Management, 23(1), 30–32.
https://doi.org/10.7748/nm.23.1.30.s28
PMid:27032286
Immonen, K., Oikarainen, A., Tomietto, M., Kääriäinen, M., 
Tuomikoski, A.-M., Kaučič, B. M. … Mikkonen, K. (2019). 
Assessment of nursing students' competence in clinical 
practice: A systematic review of reviews. International Journal 
of Nursing Studies, 100, Article 103414.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103414
PMid:31655385
Jeppesen, K. H., Christiansen, S., & Frederiksen, K. (2017). 
Education of student nurses: A systematic literature review. 
Nurse Education Today, 55, 112–121.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.05.005
PMid:28575708
Jokelainen, M., Tossavainen, K., Jamookeeah, D., & Turunen, H. 
(2013). Seamless and committed collaboration as an essential factor 
in effective mentorship for nursing students: Conceptions of Finnish 
and British mentors. Nurse Education Today, 33(5), 437–443.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.04.017
PMid:22608827
Joubert, A., & de Villiers, J. (2015). The learning experiences 
of mentees and mentors in a nursing school's mentoring 
programme. Curationis, 38(1), Article a1145.
https://doi.org/10.4102/curationis.v38i1.1145
PMid:26016816; PMCid:PMC6091808
23Nastran, A., Praprotnik, D., Renko, J., Ličen, S., & Prosen, M. (2023)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 57(1), pp. 8–23.
Kaihlanen, A.-M., Lakanmaa, R.-L., & Salminen, L. (2013). 
The transition from nursing student to registered nurse: The 
mentor's possibilities to act as a supporter. Nurse Education in 
Practice, 13(5), 418–422.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2013.01.001
PMid:23415959
Kim, M., Kim, T., Tilley, D. S., Kapusta, A., Allen, D., & Cho, H. 
S. M. (2018). Nursing students' experience of sexual harassment 
during clinical practicum: A phenomenological approach. 
Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing, 24(4), 379–391. 
https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2018.24.4.379
Launer, J. (2013). Supervision, Mentoring and coaching. In T. 
Swanwick (Ed.), Understanding medical education: Evidence, 
theory and practice, second edition (pp. 111–122). The 
Association for the Study of Medical Education.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118472361.ch8
Nelson, N., Lim, F., Navarra, A.-M., Rodriguez, K., Witkoski 
Stimpfel, A., & Slater, L. Z. (2018). Faculty and student 
perspectives on mentorship in a Nursing Honors Program. 
Nursing Education Perspectives, 39(1), 29–31.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000197
PMid:29053526
Nickitas, D. M. C., Villegas-Pantoja, M. A., & Jones, S. (2016). 
What is the relationship between mentors' qualities and mentees 
successful progression in a Nursing PhD program? Retrieved 
March 3, 2022 from https://sigma.nursingrepository.org/
handle/10755/621138
Nowell, L., Norris, J. M., Mrklas, K., & White, D. E. (2017). A 
literature review of mentorship programs in academic nursing. 
Journal of Professional Nursing, 33(5), 334–344.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2017.02.007
PMid:28931480
Pramila-Savukoski, S., Juntunen, J., Tuomikoski, A.-M., 
Kääriäinen, M., Tomietto, M., Kaučič, B. M. … Mikkonen, K. 
(2020). Mentors' self-assessed competence in mentoring nursing 
students in clinical practice: A systematic review of quantitative 
studies. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 29(5/6), 684–705.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15127
PMid:31794105
Setati, C. M., & Nkosi, Z. Z. (2017). The perceptions of 
professional nurses on student mentorship in clinical areas: A 
study in Polokwane municipality hospitals, Limpopo province. 
Health SA Gesondheid, 22, 130–137.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hsag.2017.01.008
Smythe, L. (2012). Discerning which qualitative approach fits best. 
New Zealand College of Midwives Journal, 46, 5–12. Retrieved 
December 20, 2021 from https://www.thefreelibrary.com/
Discerning+which+qualitative+approach+fits+best.-a0345073080
Vogrinc, J., 2008. Kvalitativno raziskovanje na pedagoškem področju 
(p. 18). Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Pedagoška fakulteta.
World Medical Association. (2013). World Medical Association 
Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research
involving human subjects. Journal of the American Medical 
Association, 310(20), 2191–2194.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053
PMid:24141714
World Health Organization. Regional Office for the Eastern 
Mediterranean. (2015). A guide to nursing and midwifery 
education standards. World Health Organization. Regional 
Office for the Eastern Mediterranean. Retrieved December 17, 
2021 from https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/195726
Yin, K. R. (2010). Qualitative research from start to finish 
(p. 177). New York: The Guilford press.
Cite as/Citirajte kot: 
Nastran, A., Praprotnik, D., Renko, J., Ličen, S., & Prosen, M. (2023). Interpersonal relationship between the mentor and mentee in 
clinical nursing practice: A qualitative study. Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 57(1), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.14528/snr.2023.57.1.3160