PRESIDENT'S PAGE Information technology: outreach to Much of the power of science (whether
--
practiced by sci~~entists, engi-
neers or clinical researchers) derives from the steadfast commitment to free and unfettered communication of information and knowledge.-Donald N. Langenberg, Chairman, Panel on Information Technology and the Conduct of Research. Information Technology and the Conduct of Research: The User's View [1].
Two important documents were released in 1989 that challenged us to put aside leisure summer reading and reflect upon developments in information technology and access to information by health care providers and biomedical researchers. The appearance in May 1989 of the Report of the Outreach Planning Panel of the Board of Regents of the National Library of Medicine, "Improving Health Professionals' Access to Information: Challenges and Opportunities of the National Library of Medicine," is already familiar to most members of the Medical Library Association [2]. During the annual meeting of the association in Boston, this report was formally endorsed in a joint letter to Michael E. DeBakey, M.D., chairman of the Outreach Planning Panel, from the president of the Medical Library Association and the Association of Academic Health Sciences Library Directors. The second document, the Report of the Panel on Information Technology and the Conduct of Research formed by the Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy (COSEPUP) of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Information Technology and the Conduct of Research: The User's View, may be less familiar to MLA members [3]. These publications should be read
Bull Med Libr Assoc 78(1) January 1990
users
in tandem, as together they represent a clear view of the future use of information by researchers and health care professionals. Both these reports respond to the revolution in the way scientists and health care professionals can obtain, share, and produce information that has been created by the combination of computer technology with the technology of communications. Both reports contain recommendations designed to improve direct access to information by the health professional and the research scientist, and, as a consequence, both reports are concerned with improving computer literacy among professionals. The NLM Outreach report recommends that "the RML's should act as a 'field force' for NLM products and services, providing information and services to health professionals .. ." and goes on to detail how this can be accomplished through "assist[ing] in connecting health professionals to the RML Network by making them aware of available information resources, methods of accessing them, and ways that can be useful" [4]. On a more general level, the NAS report recommends that the institutions supporting the nation's researchers must recognize and meet their responsibilities to develop and support policies, services, and standards that help researchers use information technology more widely and productively [5].
Most importantly for those of us who are health information professionals, the NAS report stresses that the primary difficulty encountered with reference databases is in conducting searches and concludes that "most information searches at present are incomplete, cumbersome, inefficient, expensive, and executable only by
specialists" [6]. To remedy this problem, it recommends that "information service providers should create simplified common standards for accessing and querying information sources and eventually provide unified access to information" [7]. The NLM Outreach report challenges NLM "to identify impediments to the use of computerized biomedical databases-be they technical, behavioral or financial-especially among health professionals engaged in patient care" [8]. As health information professionals, many MLA members have a wealth of experience in providing search services and in educating users in searching. We need to think seriously about these challenges and through our research help to provide answers to the question of how to simplify access to available information. Both reports look forward to a national network, engineered by the federal government, that will make possible communication across the country. The report of the Outreach Panel specifically addresses this development in its recommendation that NLM assure "biomedical participation in current NSFNET developments and in planning for future advanced electronic communications networks to assure health professionals access to biomedical information" [9]. A valuable aspect of both these publications, which has been proven over time, is the emphasis they place upon the user. The NAS report is written from the point of view of the researcher who uses the information, as its subtitle suggests, not from the point of view of the specialist in information technology. Similarly, the NLM Outreach report recommends that a high priority be given to research on the information needs of health 75
President's page
professionals, their current meth- management; in parallel, the de- References ods of obtaining information, and velopment of educational policy NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, their problems in doing so. The ef- and programs for health sciences fective management of libraries librarians remains a continuing PANEL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY and information resource centers priority for MLA. The emphasis AND THE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH. Inforhas been predicated on knowing placed upon both basic and ap- mation technology and the conduct of the user's view. Washington, and anticipating users' needs, and plied research in health informa- research: DC: The Academy, 1989:50. the implementation of this rec- tion science by MLA should find LIBRARY OF MEDICINE. Imommendation should provide us creative outlet in the Outreach 2. NATIONAL health professionals' access to proving with fresh information and direc- Planning Panel's challenge to information: challenges and opportution for the future. identify obstacles to the use of nities of the National Library of MedThe publication of these two re- computerized biomedical databas- icine, a report of the Outreach Planports during the first half of 1989 es. The planning effort within MLA ning Panel of the Board of Regents of occurs at an auspicious moment for has positioned our members to the National Library of Medicine. the Medical Library Association. participate actively in the environ- Washington, DC: The Library, 1989:8. The association has articulated ment that produced these reports. 3. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, Op. clearly its priorities for 1990, based There is much to be gleaned from cit. upon its long-range strategic plan both these reports, and I have 4. NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE, op. "Shaping the Future." A priority shared with you some of the par- cit., 8. for the association in 1990 is the allels that struck me as I read them. 5. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, Op. 50. promotion of the role of the hos- You will benefit greatly from read- cit., 6. IBID., 2. pital librarian and the important ing them, but I believe you will 7. IBID., 4. role played by the hospital infor- benefit even more from reading 8. NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE, Op. mation center in providing access them in context. The world of in- cit., 15. to information. In parallel, the formation technology is ubiqui- 9. IBID., 12. Outreach Planning Panel has rec- tous, and we advance best by ommended that priority be given knowing what is occurring in a to the strengthening of hospital ac- broad context. cess to national information systems and services. The Outreach Frances Groen Planning Panel is concerned with President training in health information July 1989 1.
76
Bull Med Libr Assoc 78(1) January 1990
--
practiced by sci~~entists, engi-
neers or clinical researchers) derives from the steadfast commitment to free and unfettered communication of information and knowledge.-Donald N. Langenberg, Chairman, Panel on Information Technology and the Conduct of Research. Information Technology and the Conduct of Research: The User's View [1].
Two important documents were released in 1989 that challenged us to put aside leisure summer reading and reflect upon developments in information technology and access to information by health care providers and biomedical researchers. The appearance in May 1989 of the Report of the Outreach Planning Panel of the Board of Regents of the National Library of Medicine, "Improving Health Professionals' Access to Information: Challenges and Opportunities of the National Library of Medicine," is already familiar to most members of the Medical Library Association [2]. During the annual meeting of the association in Boston, this report was formally endorsed in a joint letter to Michael E. DeBakey, M.D., chairman of the Outreach Planning Panel, from the president of the Medical Library Association and the Association of Academic Health Sciences Library Directors. The second document, the Report of the Panel on Information Technology and the Conduct of Research formed by the Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy (COSEPUP) of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Information Technology and the Conduct of Research: The User's View, may be less familiar to MLA members [3]. These publications should be read
Bull Med Libr Assoc 78(1) January 1990
users
in tandem, as together they represent a clear view of the future use of information by researchers and health care professionals. Both these reports respond to the revolution in the way scientists and health care professionals can obtain, share, and produce information that has been created by the combination of computer technology with the technology of communications. Both reports contain recommendations designed to improve direct access to information by the health professional and the research scientist, and, as a consequence, both reports are concerned with improving computer literacy among professionals. The NLM Outreach report recommends that "the RML's should act as a 'field force' for NLM products and services, providing information and services to health professionals .. ." and goes on to detail how this can be accomplished through "assist[ing] in connecting health professionals to the RML Network by making them aware of available information resources, methods of accessing them, and ways that can be useful" [4]. On a more general level, the NAS report recommends that the institutions supporting the nation's researchers must recognize and meet their responsibilities to develop and support policies, services, and standards that help researchers use information technology more widely and productively [5].
Most importantly for those of us who are health information professionals, the NAS report stresses that the primary difficulty encountered with reference databases is in conducting searches and concludes that "most information searches at present are incomplete, cumbersome, inefficient, expensive, and executable only by
specialists" [6]. To remedy this problem, it recommends that "information service providers should create simplified common standards for accessing and querying information sources and eventually provide unified access to information" [7]. The NLM Outreach report challenges NLM "to identify impediments to the use of computerized biomedical databases-be they technical, behavioral or financial-especially among health professionals engaged in patient care" [8]. As health information professionals, many MLA members have a wealth of experience in providing search services and in educating users in searching. We need to think seriously about these challenges and through our research help to provide answers to the question of how to simplify access to available information. Both reports look forward to a national network, engineered by the federal government, that will make possible communication across the country. The report of the Outreach Panel specifically addresses this development in its recommendation that NLM assure "biomedical participation in current NSFNET developments and in planning for future advanced electronic communications networks to assure health professionals access to biomedical information" [9]. A valuable aspect of both these publications, which has been proven over time, is the emphasis they place upon the user. The NAS report is written from the point of view of the researcher who uses the information, as its subtitle suggests, not from the point of view of the specialist in information technology. Similarly, the NLM Outreach report recommends that a high priority be given to research on the information needs of health 75
President's page
professionals, their current meth- management; in parallel, the de- References ods of obtaining information, and velopment of educational policy NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, their problems in doing so. The ef- and programs for health sciences fective management of libraries librarians remains a continuing PANEL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY and information resource centers priority for MLA. The emphasis AND THE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH. Inforhas been predicated on knowing placed upon both basic and ap- mation technology and the conduct of the user's view. Washington, and anticipating users' needs, and plied research in health informa- research: DC: The Academy, 1989:50. the implementation of this rec- tion science by MLA should find LIBRARY OF MEDICINE. Imommendation should provide us creative outlet in the Outreach 2. NATIONAL health professionals' access to proving with fresh information and direc- Planning Panel's challenge to information: challenges and opportution for the future. identify obstacles to the use of nities of the National Library of MedThe publication of these two re- computerized biomedical databas- icine, a report of the Outreach Planports during the first half of 1989 es. The planning effort within MLA ning Panel of the Board of Regents of occurs at an auspicious moment for has positioned our members to the National Library of Medicine. the Medical Library Association. participate actively in the environ- Washington, DC: The Library, 1989:8. The association has articulated ment that produced these reports. 3. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, Op. clearly its priorities for 1990, based There is much to be gleaned from cit. upon its long-range strategic plan both these reports, and I have 4. NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE, op. "Shaping the Future." A priority shared with you some of the par- cit., 8. for the association in 1990 is the allels that struck me as I read them. 5. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, Op. 50. promotion of the role of the hos- You will benefit greatly from read- cit., 6. IBID., 2. pital librarian and the important ing them, but I believe you will 7. IBID., 4. role played by the hospital infor- benefit even more from reading 8. NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE, Op. mation center in providing access them in context. The world of in- cit., 15. to information. In parallel, the formation technology is ubiqui- 9. IBID., 12. Outreach Planning Panel has rec- tous, and we advance best by ommended that priority be given knowing what is occurring in a to the strengthening of hospital ac- broad context. cess to national information systems and services. The Outreach Frances Groen Planning Panel is concerned with President training in health information July 1989 1.
76
Bull Med Libr Assoc 78(1) January 1990
