Librarians as Educators

While I don't often take the time to read Library Journal, preferring instead to let them pile up on my desk so no one else can read them, I did notice one news item from the October 1, 2008 issue that struck me as significant. It referred to a faculty opinion survey called Ithaka's 2006 Studies of Key Stakeholders in the Digital Transformation in Higher Education that revealed an "...emerging disconnect between librarians' perceptions of their roles and the expectations and habits of the faculty they serve."

The study drew a lot of comment from academic librarians, among them Steven Bell of Temple University, who suggested that the next study should include librarian roles of educator and instructional partner along with the more traditional ones. Good thinking, Steven. I believe this is a area where librarians can make the greatest impact, both now and in the future, and in all types of libraries.

Paging Dr. Google

Interesting article in the International Herald Tribune about how the public uses the Internet for health information. And later Twitters about their treatment.

Don't Wanna Come to Class?

Would you like to get the scoop on PubMed but don't want to or can't take the time to come and sit in class? Well, here's a sneak preview of tomorrow's class: PubMed Basics

If you come to class, you'll get hands-on experience with some of PubMed's search features, and we'll show you how to get full text articles. But if you really can't make it, you can call 206-6639 to arrange an individual coaching session. We'll even come to your office or work space.

That Time of Year Again

Last fall we made the announcement that in order to fund online resources for both UCSF and SFGH affiliates, we planned to cut the library’s print journal subscriptions The decision was based on what we saw as dwindling use of print titles, rising subscription costs, and desire to fund electronic resources such as DynaMed, Nursing Reference Center, and online databases such as CINAHL and Medline with their accompanying full text journal content.

After we announced the cuts, we hunkered down to await the fallout. But aside from several requests to retain specific titles, the negative reaction never came. Is it true that our staff is so well served by existing electronic resources that current print subscriptions aren’t all that important any more…except maybe for browsing? If that’s not true, we need to hear from you because it’s that time of year again, and we’re planning more print journal cuts. Here are some of the print subscriptions that are on the chopping block but available online:

Academic Radiology
Annals of Emergency Medicine
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
Journal of Investigative Medicine
Pediatrics in Review
Scandinavian journal of Infectious Diseases
Seminars in Thrombosis and HemostasisTransfusion

Drug Error Finder

This just in from the U.S. Pharmacopeia people:
"As a service to healthcare practitioners, industry, consumers, and others, USP has developed a free tool for accessing drug names that have been identified with a medication error. USP's Drug Error Finder allows a user to search more than 1,400 drugs involved in look–alike and/or sound–alike errors. It not only lists the other drugs involved in a mix–up, but also designates the severity of the error where at least one report was received through USP's Reporting Programs. Use USP's Drug Error Finder*."

Clarification from NIH

This just in from NIH regarding methods of manuscript submissions: NIH Public Access web page . For more information, see the NIH public access FAQ.

Just How Happy ARE You?

This past spring we conducted our annual customer satisfaction survey. The only change we made in the content was the title. This year we called it the "Customer HAPPINESS Survey", a la Google who has an actual salaried person called the "Customer Happiness Manager". (We figured we couldn't go too far wrong copying Google.)

Day before yesterday someone, not a library staffer either, actually asked about the results of the above-mentioned survey. Only then did I realize I hadn't publicized them to anyone but the library staff. So for all those inquiring minds out there, here are some statistically significant findings:

• Frequency of use - Up by 13% in the frequent or relatively frequent library use category. This includes walk-in use as well as online electronic use of resources.
• Usefulness of services - This year, respondents found our provision of health information for patients and families 12.4% more useful, our classes for staff 10% more usful and our one-on one information retrieval coaching 8% more useful than they did last year. We're actually doing pretty much what we did last year, but more people are finding out about it.
• Overall satisfaction - The percentage of highly or mostly satisfied respondents increased from 46% to 68% with the Neutral/No opinion category decreasing by almost half. I was really glad about that because I feel better if people have at least some opinion about us, either good or bad. Speaking of bad: our hightly dissatisfied and mildly dissatified people are still out there and still represent 6% of all those who responded. I suspect some of those folks are just basically curmudgeonly or were just grumpy that day, but some did give us good feedback about things we need to change such as our printing set up. And it's good to know those things. That's what surveys are for.

Thanks to all who took the time to respond, and for those who didn't, you're in luck. You'll have another chance next year.