What would happen to the role of the medical scholar described in the CanMeds framework (Frank et al., 2015, p. 24) as ‘physicians who demonstrate a lifelong commitment to excellence in practice...

What would happen to the role of the medical scholar described in the CanMeds framework (Frank et al., 2015, p. 24) as ‘physicians who demonstrate a lifelong commitment to excellence in practice through continuous learning and by teaching others, evaluating evidence, and contributing to scholarship’ or the medical expert described ‘as a physician who provides high-quality, safe, patientcentred care, physicians draw upon an evolving body of knowledge, their clinical skills, and their professional values’ given this perspective? Similarly, in another health profession – occupational therapy – the scholarly practitioners are defined as individuals who ‘bases their work on the best evidence from research, best practices, and experiential knowledge. Practitioners evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of client services and programs. Occupational therapists engage in a lifelong pursuit to continuously maintain and build personal expertise. A commitment is demonstrated to facilitate learning and contribute to the creation, dissemination, application, and translation of knowledge’ (Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists, 2012, p. 3). If we accept that EBP is one way, not the way, of engaging in clinical reasoning, how do we simultaneously encourage and promote the development of the scholarly practitioner?