NEJM and Medical Libraries
There has already been some discussion about this article in NEJM March 17, 2005.
Lee, T. H.
Quiet in the Library
New England Journal of Medicine 2005 March 17 352;11 1068. (sorry not free online)
The author reminisces how the library used to be loud and full of doctors and students. He says it is like that no longer. It has finally become a great place to work and study. The reason he gives is that once doctors were told to know everything and the strove to do just that at the library. However, with the flood of information accessible from the internet, doctors have no prayer of knowing everything and now their patients are more knowledgeable. He says we have gone from a "life long learning" medical society to a learning it "just in time" culture, where doctors search the internet and ask colleagues for information.
What has gotten a some medical librarian upset is that Dr. Lee never mentions librarians as part of his colleagues. Heck he doesn't even mention calling, emailing, faxing the librarian for help answering the questions. He doesn't mention asking the librarian help for internet searches. One is led to believe that Dr. Lee and others like him jump on Google (or PubMed if they think they are internet savvy) and plunk away to find answers. When that doesn't pan out they ask other doctors. What has gotten librarians frustrated and upset is that it never occurred to Dr. Lee that he might ask for help, when sometime we are the best and most efficient resource. One librarian on Medlib-l posted her response to Dr. Lee's article.
As much as I get irritated at Dr. Lee's omission of a librarian's powers in today's "get it now" philosophy that is seen in medicine and in the regular world, it is important to know that Dr. Lee was more lamenting about the philosophy of learning in medicine as a whole. Yes, he slighted the librarian and library, but not really pointing to our virtues. But is important to know that Dr. Lee's article was right in between an even larger article regarding the future of libraries. This larger article is entitled 2015-The Future of Medical Libraries.
Lindberg and Humphreys.
2015-The Future of Medical Libraries
New England Journal of Medicine 2005 March 17 352;11 1067-1070. (not free online)
This article was written by both a physician (Lindberg) and a librarian (Humphreys). In it they look at the transformation of libraries and the metamorphosis that will occur to medical libraries. Electronic resources, including journals will be vast and more dynamic which illustrating a need for a commitment to the preservation of electronic information. "Smart" programs will be able to work in tandem with the patient's electronic medical record and allow the physician to use relevant published medical information (journals, images, patient hand outs, etc.) specific to that patient's condition.
I find this a very interesting read and I actually get excited at what the future holds for us and librarians.
So when you pair the two article together, as they are in the print copy of NEJM you get a clearer understanding of how libraries and medicine are changing. What intrigues me is that these two articles are not written to librarians. They are certainly not "preaching to the choir," they are written for doctors and administrators. I almost like to think of the pair of articles as primer for the evolution of libraries. With Dr. Lee's article we see how we used to be, lots of people photocopying and physically in the library. With the Lindberg and Humphreys article we see where we are going and what we can be. However there is a danger. If we do not move towards the exciting 2015 future, we will end up like Dr. Lee's library, where doctors do their own internet searching and talk amongst themselves for their information needs. If we do not evolve how can we expect doctors and professionals to take us seriously as partners in the patient care team? I for one will be giving this article to my administrators, so that they can better see how I and my library fit into the evolution of information age and medicine, specifically the wireless information world.

2 Comments:
I find it interesting that these articles are printed in NEJM. Our online sub price with them increased by over $10,000 last year - far beyond our library budget - so we are no longer able to offer our patrons online access to one of our most popular journals. I look forward to reading them when the print journal eventually reaches us. It now arrives up to three weeks later than the actual publication date.
What is also intersting to note is in the 2015 article the authors say,
"In this future, journals are still an important vehicle for disseminating peer-reviewed research results, but many individual articles have electronic lives of their own. Much scientific information is available free over the Internet - thanks in part to earlier efforts to make information about clinical trials and government-funded research available to the public - though many sources of electronic information require paid licenses. Greater reliance on electronic-publication standards and a mix of payment and publication models keep annual price increases relatively low."
Hmm I find it ironic that an article in a journal that is unaffordable online to many libraries, is stating that annual price increases (journals) will be relatively low.
Your quote of $10,000 is not unheard of. At my previous library we were only able to subscribe to NEJM online by doing some major cuts and reallocating resources and money.
Is online access to one journal worth all of that?! For some it would seem so.
Post a Comment
<< Home