I want to thank Melissa Rethlefsen for finding this gem and sharing it on Twitter. It is perfect to share as a Friday Fun.
This is Part 1 of ISI Presents -Putting Scientific Information to Work
If you think Part 2 is a thriller, make sure you watch Part 2 and Part 3!
The campy music and high detail graphics makes me think of it as the School House Rock version of how to do database and citation searching.
Friday Fun Tags:
The iPad is the new darling of the hospital world. Depending on who you talk to, it can do almost anything. Perhaps that is why some groups are jumping into the iPad arena before they are ready. The adoption of any technology depends heavily on whether an institution has the infrastructure to support it. Here is an example of one residency program testing the use of an iPad before its hospital had the infrastructure to support it.
The article “Resident Impressions of the Clinical Utility and Educational Value of the iPad” published in the November issue of Journal of Mobile Technology in Medicine tried to determine the value of the iPad during clinical rounds and for education. The authors from Riverside Methodist Hospital gave 119 residents an iPad to use during the 2011-2012 academic year. The residents gave their opinions on the clinical utility and educational value of the iPad. The results were disappointing. “The iPad received low marks for daily clinical utility (14.7%) and efficiency in documentation (7.8%). It was most valued for sourcing articles outside the hospital (57.8%) and as a research tool (52%).” Basically residents did not place a high value on the iPad when used in clinical rounding or as an educational tool.
Yes the residents didn’t find the iPad to be useful during clinical rounding, but that is because the hospital really wasn’t ready for the iPad, or any device, to helpful during rounding.
At the time the article was written, the hospital was still writing orders on a paper based chart. Moving from paper to the iPad is quite a jump for people and hospital technology. “All resident groups reported problems with utilization of the iPad for medical documentation/progress notes.” If the hospital is still writing orders on paper based charts perhaps it isn’t the iPad to blame but the fact that the hospital hasn’t adopted writing orders electronically.
In addition to writing orders on a paper based chart, the hospital’s other infrastructure items clearly were not ready for the use of iPads. Further in the article they discuss connectivity problems and EMR access problems.
Connectivity - “All resident groups noted problems with iPad login-in and connectivity/WiFi. During the academic year 98 tickets specific for iPad set-up and connectivity issues were reported to Information Technology services.” Now the authors do mention that it was 98 tickets out of 182,000 global tickets, but when you only have 119 people using iPad, 98 tickets is not good. Anybody who has been in a deadzone can relate to the frustration of losing network access. Relying upon a network device for clinical use when you have poor connectivity (or difficult to access WiFi) is like relying on a cell phone service in the mountains after a winter storm.
EMR access – Residents were asked to recommend apps and medical tools for the iPad. “The single most frequently cited application was Riverside’s electronic medical record.” The method by which they access their EMR makes it cumbersome for somebody with an iPad to access it. “Our EHR is access via remote desktop, requiring a two-step login process.” So the device that they wanted them to test its clinical use, does not have easy access to the EMR, a major clinical application.
The authors of this study suggest that residency efficiency “may be less positively impacted by the use of the iPad than previously reported.” I believe the authors are both right and wrong to make this statement. The authors clearly listed several hospital wide infrastructure issues creating barriers to online access. “Though log-in and connectivity issues were noted as a significant problem, technology support was rarely utilized. Residents often found it faster to use a computer than reporting difficulties. Additionally, electronic order entry is not available at our hospital.” Not only do these statements reveal the hospital wasn’t ready for adoption of the iPad or any tablet device, but it reflects their residents’ attitude toward their help desk and the speed at which they need things to work to get information. I think the authors would have been more accurate if they had stated, residency efficiency may be less positively impacted by the use of the iPad if the hospital is not adequately prepared ahead of time for the use of mobile devices.
To study the use of the iPad in a clinical setting when the clinical setting is clearly not ready, is like testing the use of a car in an area where there are no roads.
I look forward to reading other iPad studies where the hospital is not the barrier and we can better determine whether the iPad (or any other tablet) is of clinical value or not.
iPad, Technology Tags:
Ok I tried to read the NLM Tech Bull, New PubModel for PubMed Citations, but it was so packed full of jargon that my brain started to hurt. I read it through several times then asked our cataloger what she understood of it.
This is what I was able to piece together. It is for online only journals and they will have two dates, the eCollection and the published date. The eCollection date refers to when the article was deposited in PMC.
I have several thoughts…none of them pleasant.
First, it is pretty bad when the technical bulletin is confusing to the very readers it aims to inform. I am not the only one who thinks it was confusing. Check out these responses to my quick question on Twitter.
Second, isn’t the term Electronic eCollection kind of redundant?
Finally, Does this solve the epub ahead of print mess or just add to the confusion? To me it seems to add to the confusion. Not only do we have 2 different possible “publication” dates but their example article ”was published online on January 25, 2013, yet was included in the Volume 3, 2012 collection as deposited in PMC.” Does anybody find that absolutely confusing?! What is the correct citation for authors to use?! When was it really published? Why is PMC not listing it when it was actually published by the journal on January 25, 2013!?
How can I explain this to doctors when I can’t understand it and why it is being done? Please somebody comment because I befuddled.
NLM, PubMed Tags:
Tuesday and Wednesday I will be flying in and out of Chicago for the MLA Fall Board meeting. So who is the Board and what happens when they all meet together?
First off, here is a list of all the current and previous Board Members. The Nominating Committee selects people they think would be good candidates for the Board of Directors. They list them on the ballot for the membership to vote on. An elected Board Member serves for a period of 3 years. Each Board Member is appointed as liaison to MLA committees and task forces. Chapters and Sections are represented by the Chapter Council liaison and the Section Council liaison on the Board. The Board meets 3 times a year. They meet in May at the Annual Meeting (before and after the conference), in the Fall in Chicago, and in Jan/Feb online.
So what does the Board do?!
The Board does its best to represent the interests of the MLA membership through their liaison roles and through their participation in MLA. Not only do they discuss issues and trends within organization and work to address them but they also meet discuss the general operating needs of the organization.
While each meeting is a little different, the Board always discusses the operating needs of the organization such as financial health of MLA. In the May meeting the Board discusses a lot of what will or has happened at the Annual Meeting. The Board also gets to meet the newly elected Board Members and the new President elect. The Board members report on the committees or task forces to which they are liaisons. This Fall the Board will discuss the Presidential priorities and the President elect’s priority ideas. They will also discuss the results from the previous Annual Meeting’s survey (the results of which are not available until well after the meeting). Then they discuss action items and reports from the various MLA committees and task forces. Other items that are also discussed, planning and updates of the future Annual Meetings, MLANet, and liaison appointments for the next year. The Jan/Feb online meeting is relatively short (compared to in person all day meetings) where the Board discusses the preparations for the Annual Meeting and any updates to items discussed in the Fall.
You can read about what the Board discusses in each year’s annual report. The annual report summarizes what the Board and the rest of MLA has done for the year.
My work on the Nominating Committee gave me a interesting glimpse into the way our leadership is nominated and elected. My work on the Board as given me wonderful insight on how the organization runs and moves forward each year. The combination of the two has shown me how important it is for us as members to be active participants in the organization and for us to vote on our leaders. Serving as an MLA Board Member has been an awesome experience. I hope others who have served or will serve in the future feel the same way.
As always this Behind the Scenes post was created from information on MLA’s website. Understanding the various groups within MLA can get confusing and I hope by compiling the information into a series of posts it can help shed some light on the association. I invite anyone with more information about the MLA Board of Directors to comment.
Behind the Scenes Tags:
(Special thanks for Julia Esparza for her email directing me to this.)
Check out this cool infographic from the Australian Library and Information Association and Health Libraries Inc. Basically it states that despite having budgets, staff and space cuts health science libraries provide $9 of benefit to their healthcare orgs for every $1 spent on them.
This infographic is part of a study conducted by Health Libraries Inc (HLInc) and Health Libraries Australia (ALIA HLA, a national group of the Australian Library and Information Association).
“The partners commissioned award-winning firm SGS Economics and Planning to survey health libraries across the nation and from this to assess the return on the annual investment in these services to their organisations.
The results provide a snapshot of the continued outstanding value of health libraries against a backdrop of significantly greater usage but declining investment. Patient and medical staff numbers and hospital expenditure are increasing, while health library budgets, space and staffing levels are decreasing.”
To view the full report, please click here. You can also find the SGS report here.
There are lots of very cool things in the infographic but the one that really stands out to me is at the bottom (unfortunately). It says, “The investment in these services (library) is just 0.1% of the recurrent expenditure in Australian hospitals.”
IMHO that information is HUGE. Why are hospitals cutting such a SMALL percentage of their recurrent budget when it provides a healthy return on investment!?
One of the reasons I think this is happening is because we need to do this kind of study on a local level. Hospital librarians need to figure out how we can show this information to our administration and also show how we are helping with their bottom line DESPITE our cuts.
While I think this is information is important, I don’t think running up to your administrator showing him this infographic (or emailing it to him/her) is going to help. Administration has the mind set of, “What have YOU done for me lately?” They will see this infographic and think “how nice for Australia, but what about our hospital?” How are you helping your specific hospital with costs and patient care? Please don’t answer them with the phrase, “I provide doctors and nurses with information.”
That is all fine and dandy but that answer doesn’t specifically detail how you are helping the hospital with costs and patient care. Numbers matter to them. Hospital librarians need to do these studies on a much smaller level in their own institutions. We need our own local numbers telling administration that we helped our OWN caregivers change their thinking and improve their diagnosis or treatment plan X%.
That is what matters to our administration.
Hospital librarians…we need to do our own research studies to survive. The research doesn’t have to publishable in a library journal but it has to be given to administration and make sense to them. Heather Homes calls it the “small r research.” It is research that doesn’t take a year or more to complete, it is specific to your department and institution, and it is what administration finds important. All of these things run contrary to big R research. Big R research takes several years to complete, applies to libraries as whole, and is of interest to other librarians. The little r research is about your job, the big R research is about the career of librarianship.
So lets start to deconstruct these great big R research projects like the Marshall study and this one from Australia so we can see how we can apply them for our own small r research in our institutions and in our jobs.
Who’s with me?!
The MLA polls are open and you don’t even have to drive to get to them to vote. If you are an MLA member you just have to open up your email and follow the link and instructions. Easy peasy.
As easy as the process is to vote, it is not so easy to choose the people. To help you choose, MLA has included bios on the Presidential, Board Member and Nominating Committee candidates. The candidates for President and Board Members were also asked to answer a question posed by the Nominating Committee. Please read through the candidates and their answers. Who you choose will help shape the future of MLA.
The November/December of MLA News usually prints the list of candidates and provides the answers to additional questions the Nominating Commitee asked the Presidential candidates, so keep your eye out for that. When it is available I will post the link.
MLA Events/News Tags:
The SCC/MLA meeting had a costume party and I thought I would share my costume. Anybody else who wants to share their pictures from the night, post the link in the comments. Hope you had a Happy Halloween!
Medical Librarians: We Can Do It!
Friday Fun Tags:
This week I was at the SCC/MLA annual meeting in Fort Worth teaching a class. I got in a little early and I was glad I did.
Karen Keller, Dena Hanson, Lynne Harmon, and Barbara Steffensen at Cook Children’s Medical Center presented a paper on the creation of a tool for non-academic health sciences librarians to measure the value of research performed by librarians. The tool attempts to measure the value and establish an ROI of librarian expertise. The abstract of the paper can be found in their online program(pg 25 of 36 in PDF viewer)
I found this to be really interesting. Medical librarians have been looking for ways quantify what we do and put a value on it to our administration. I did not get a chance to listen to the actual paper presentation. I found out about it because I attended the Hospital Librarianship Forum where we discussed ideas and issues facing hospital librarians. In the forum Karen mention her tool. Unfortunately the tool is not available. The are still testing it.
Even though it it isn’t ready for prime time I wanted to blog about it to make sure it is on the radar for librarians who might also be interested. So keep your eyes and ears open.
Wow! November is just around the corner. If you have been planning to submit a paper or poster for MLA 2014 you better get moving because the deadline is Novmeber 1st.
(reposted from MLA-LMS email list)
NOVEMBER 1 DEADLINE – CALL FOR PAPERS/POSTERS, MLA’14, “BUILDING OUR INFORMATION FUTURE”
You are invited submit an abstract for a paper or poster that reflects on the best ideas for the future of information practices in health sciences librarianship at the Medical Library Association Annual Meeting, May 16–21, 2014, Chicago. To begin, review the paper/poster FAQs at: http://mlanet.org/am/am2014/sect_prog/index.html, then begin the online submission process. Avoid the last-minute rush and submit your abstract before November 1st.
Be inspired to think how you can be an architect of a health information landscape that responds to the challenges of growth and an ever-evolving environment. How will you design your blueprint for the information future? What tools will you need? What skills will be required? How will you know if what you construct is useful? The MLA Annual Meeting will offer you an opportunity to plan and style an information future that reflects expanding roles to reach new heights.
Join your colleagues for MLA’14 in Chicago and build your information future at the largest meeting of medical librarians and health sciences information professionals in the world! In January, preliminary programs will be mailed to MLA members and meeting registration will officially open. For more information see: http://mlanet.org/am/am2014/index.html
Annual Meeting Tags:
November 1st seems to be the deadline for a lot of things. So if you are thinking about applying for something, nominating somebody, or presenting something at MLA 2014, you better start checking your deadlines.
(reposted with persmission)
Please consider nominating a colleague for the Louise Darling Medal for Distinguished Achievement in Collection Development in the Health Sciences!
The Louise Darling Medal is presented annually to recognize distinguished achievement in collection development in the health sciences. The award was established in 1987 and first awarded in 1988, with a contribution by Ballen Booksellers International, Inc. The recipient receives an engraved medal, a certificate, and a $1,000 cash award.
If you want to nominate a deserving colleague, please go to www.mlanet.org/awards/honors/ for more information and online nomination forms. The deadline for applications is November 1. Please contact jury chair Jeff Williams at jeffrey.williams [atsign] nyumc [dot org] with any questions.