This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Related letter  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Quality of Care, Other  • Medical Education  • Alert me on articles by topic

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: In their Commentary, Dr Holmboe and colleagues¹ effectively reinforced the point that up-to-date and robust medical knowledge, as well as accurate and effective knowledge synthesis and problem solving, are key to high-quality and effective physician performance. Assessing substantive medical knowledge is an integral part of licensure and specialty certification. Unfortunately, maintaining a high level of medical knowledge and effective clinical judgment skills is presented as being a distinct endeavor from efforts to promote better health outcomes by improving clinical processes at the microsystem level. Distinguishing the substantive medical knowledge domain from the process improvement domain fits the traditional model of separating the activity of direct patient care from the activity of clinical process improvement. In this approach, the former is performed by clinicians in the clinical examination room, while the latter is usually directed by quality improvement professionals who develop system and process changes designed to improve . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Marvin A. Dewar, MD, JD
dewarm@shands.ufl.edu
College of Medicine
University of Florida
Gainesville

RELATED ARTICLE

Assessing Quality of Care: Knowledge Matters
Eric S. Holmboe, Rebecca Lipner, and Ann Greiner
JAMA. 2008;299(3):338-340.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED LETTER

Assessing Competencies of Knowledge and Process Improvement—Reply
Eric S. Holmboe, Rebecca Lipner, and Ann Greiner
JAMA. 2008;299(19):2276-2277.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT