Editorial Board Q & A: Jack Ende

JE_2_10-2014
Jack Ende, MD, assistant dean for advanced medical practice, Perelman School of Medicine, executive medical director, Penn Signature Services, University of Pennsylvania Health System

1. Describe your current activities.

My clinical work is outpatient general internal medicine, about four half days per week, and inpatient attending duties, 12 weeks per year. My current research focuses on how best to structure attending rounds. My administrative duties include my role as the executive medical director of Penn Signature Services, which includes Penn Global Medicine, and co-directing Penn’s Academy of Master Clinicians.

2. What gaps do you see in today’s scholarship?

We have not been able to translate educational interventions or actual changes in physician/learner performance into patient outcomes, apart from performance on tests and similar pedagogic outcomes.

3. Why do you read Academic Medicine?

There is no better source of information on what is happening in undergraduate and graduate medical education, nor is there a better source of information on issues pertaining to academic medical centers and teaching in general.

4. What issues will we be reading about in five years?

I hope we will be reading about how medicine and medical education can become more patient centered, even as we move forward with informatic and technological advances. I am deeply concerned about the erosion of clinical skills and hope we will see this emphasized in the future.

5. What book(s) are you reading right now?

I recently read The Boys in the Boat: Nine Americans and Their Epic Quest for Gold at the 1936 Berlin Olympics by Daniel James Brown and Born Round: A Story of Family, Food and a Ferocious Appetite by Frank Bruni. The latter was of academic interest only, of course.

Related Posts

One Comment

  1. Diane B Wayne MD
    December 16, 2014 at 2:39 PM

    We enjoyed reading the interview with Dr. Ende but disagree with the statement, “We have not been able to translate educational interventions or actual changes in physician/learner performance into patient outcomes, apart from performance on tests and similar pedagogic outcomes.” On the contrary, there is a growing body of evidence that supports the ability of powerful medical education interventions to translate into improved patient outcomes. Many studies show that rigorous education using simulation as a curriculum driver can improve patient care practices, reduce iatrogenic complications, and lower health care costs. This evidence exists for team-based skills such as Advanced Cardiac Life Support and clinical procedures including laparoscopic surgery, central venous catheter insertion, lumbar puncture, colonoscopy, and paracentesis. Simulation-based medical education (SBME) is especially effective using a mastery learning model where baseline testing, rigorous education, feedback, and post-testing are combined to ensure high levels of skill acquisition among all learners. Use of SBME to achieve translational outcomes has been addressed in at least four review articles published since 2011.(1-4) The evidence to date clearly shows that rigorous medical education interventions qualify as translational science. We agree with Dr. Ende that more evidence (and funding) is required to advance translational educational science regarding acquisition and maintenance of other clinical skills.

    Diane B. Wayne, MD
    Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine
    Jeffrey H. Barsuk, MD, MS
    Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine

    William C. McGaghie, PhD
    Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine

    References
    1.McGaghie WC, Draycott TJ, Dunn WF, et al. Evaluating the impact of simulation on translational patient outcomes. Simul Healthc. 2011; 6 (3 Suppl.): S42-S47.
    2.McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Cohen ER, et al. Translational educational research—a necessity for effective healthcare improvement. CHEST 2012; 142: 1097-1103.
    3.Cook DA, Brydges R, Zendejas B, et al. Mastery learning for health professionals using technology-enhanced simulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med. 2013; 88: 1178-1186.
    4.McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Barsuk JH, Wayne DB. A critical review of simulation-based medical education with translational outcomes. Med Educ. 2014; 48: 375-385.

%d bloggers like this: