3)] and to be satisfied with mentorship [2.2 (1.4, 3. 6)] than residents in nonassigned programs. Regardless of whether residents were in a program that assigned mentors, multivariable analyses showed that residents who had a mentor during residency were more likely to think that their residency was doing the best job preparing them for their future career [2.0 (1.2, 3. 2)] compared with residents who did not have a mentor. CONCLUSION: Internal medicine residents who were mentored were significantly more likely to report excellent preparation for future careers. Residents who were assigned a mentor were more likely to identify a mentor and to be satisfied with the mentorship they received. These data suggest that residency training programs should assign mentors to house officers. PURPOSE: Identifying potential mentors is an important part of residency training. Morning report (MR) provides exposure to a variety of attending physicians. We studied resident and program characteristics that were associated with the ability to identify a potential mentor at MR. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey of 356 internal medicine residents from a convenience sample of thirteen residency programs. The instrument included questions about demographic characteristics, subspecialty fellowship plans and ability to identify a potential mentor in MR during the previous six months. RESULTS: The response rate was 63% (38% female). Women were significantly more likely to have plans to go into general internal medicine (GIM) (43% vs.58%, p < 0.001). Overall, 73% of residents were able to identify a potential mentor at morning report within the previous six months. Women were significantly less likely than men to be able to identify a mentor (63% vs. 79%, p < 0.001). Stratification by fellowship plans revealed that female residents not planning on subspecialty training were significantly less likely than male to be able to identify a potential mentor ( Figure) . Residents from programs with > 50% generalists at MR were less likely than those from programs with more specialists at MR to identify a potential mentor (57% vs 81%, p < 0.001).