Hi Beatrice

I've finally got round to reading this article, and am happy to kick of
the discussion.

It seems to me that the job described is mostly that of a good
librarian. One of the authors' arguments seems to be that clinicians
have neither the time nor inclination to find and read evidence. My
feeling is that it is clinicians attitudes that would benefit from being
changed, rather than the role or job title of librarians. It is not all
that long ago that a consultant came into my library for an article on
asthma. What aspect of asthma, I wanted to know. What was he hoping to
find? Oh, he said, just any old article, just so that he could wave it
about at a teaching session. That, he said, his being evidence-based.

The authors seem to be saying that they want someone to find
information, read it, assimilate it, and then advise the clinician. It's
a step further than we usually go, and I don't see why, time, staff and
other resources allowing, a librarian couldn't fulfil that role.
However, if clinicians don't believe evidence and information is
important they will shelve any beautifully prepared synopsis of evidence
and stick to their own opinions, or those of their colleagues. I feel
that the important job is not to spoon feed clinicians, but to help them
understand the usefulness and importance of information used properly. 

The article also suggests that medical librarians need clinical
training. This doesn't seem totally unreasonable as some background
knowledge obviously helps a librarian to make the right decisions, look
for the right information, and identify related information. I have
certainly seen adverts for law librarians requiring a background in law.
However, the authors haven't said how much clinical training is needed,
and to what level. They could mean anything from someone with science A
levels and a grounding in medical terminology, to fully qualified
doctors running libraries. 

The article also seems to be advocating an information/library job with
a higher profile, and perhaps one in a better position to be accepted as
a useful fellow professional by clinicians. I'm sure that would be a
good thing.

The informationist (what an ugly Americanism!) is just another kind of
librarian. We're an ever evolving breed, keeping up with changes with
changes in technology and changes in the various other professions which
we serve. Something we have always been good at is listening to our
users. If this is what the medical profession want and feels it needs,
we should at the very least be out there discussing it with them.

Sara

In message <9921C1171939D3119D860090278AECA27447CE@EXCHANGE>, Beatrice
Doran <[log in to unmask]> writes
>Has anyone read "The Informationist: A New Health Profession?"
>editorial in the June 20th issue of Annals of Internal Medicine by Frank
>Davidoff
>Valerie Florance?  It seems to be to be advocating a new profession when
>Medical Librarians already do this type of work.  Can we discuss it on the
>list?
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Beatrice Doran

Sara Stock
Library Services Manager 
North Essex Hospitals' Library & Information Service
Colchester General Hospital
Turner Road
Colchester
Essex
CO4 5JL
T: (01206) 742146 or 742396
F: (01206) 742107


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%