• Rita Sieracki
• Sharon Gray
• Holly Harden
• Marcy Brown
• David Hulkonen
• Douglas Mandel
• Linda M. Hartman
• Lynn Fortney

In a brief format, please list topics discussed and ideas shared.

The Informationist Conference was held April 4-5, 2002 at the National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland, and was funded by a grant from NLM. The Informationist Task Force was appointed by President Carol Jenkins in Fall 2001. Information about the conference may be found at http://www.mlanet.org/researchresearch/informationist.

Topics Covered at the Roundtable Include:

• How participants were chosen for the Informationist Conference
• Participants were invited. An invitational conference, participants were selected based upon organizational representation and/or, functional areas of knowledge or expertise. Also, Regional Medical Library (RML) directors and associate directors from the National Network of Libraries of Medicine (NNLM) were invited as well as MLA), Board members of the Medical Library Association, and editors/authors of the Philadelphia Chapter Informationist Symposium;, the chapter who first organized their meeting centered on this concept.
• A total of 50 participants were invitedplanned, with 30 of them serving as speakers. Since NLM funded the conference, the RML directors were invited and funded by NLM as a means of disseminatingway to disseminate information from the conference and continuingcontinue to stimulate a national conversation to further explore the concept
• Participants were intended to be a cross section of potential stakeholders including: health sciences librarians, physicians, nurses, bench researchers, pharmacists, association officers and executive directors, library school educators and deans, medical school curriculum directors and government agency representatives
• The selection of speakers/participants was a dynamic process. It was difficult to find speakers by function, willing to speak on the topic, and to able to attend
• Ten task force members with differing ideas of the concept and working primarily via email, focused the conference on the clinical and research settings
• Small group action discussions focused on: requisite knowledge, skills and abilities, how to fund, market, test, and evaluate the concept
• In addition to the current conference information on MLANET, a summary of the conference will be printed inand the recommendations for an action agenda is the focus of the October 2002 issue of the Journal of the Medical Library Association. An action agenda is being created by the Task Force.
• Per As a result of conference discussion, the definition of the Informationist concept depends on the culture of the, setting and the specific content required
• The difference between a Clinical Medical Librarian (CML) and an Informationist was discussed butan issue not resolved.
• One participant noted that "The Gertrude Lamb CML model of 1970" never had the clout of a national focus
• The current self-search mode of physicians seems to reduce the need for expert searching. One participant who attended the MLA CE course taught by the Vanderbilt staff spoke highly of the continued need for expert search skills in the clinical setting
• Models of the research informationist are at the University of Washington California San Diego and Abbott Laboratories. Informationist positions are being recruited by the NIH Library and the University of California San Diego Biomedical Library.Washington
• Much discussion focused on funding models. One participant noted library services are already charged back @$95/hour. NIH reportedly charges back @$53/hour for professional staff time. It was noted that The Information Therapy company is already charging for consumer health information
• In education, the informationist role is often an add-on to someone’s position. Traditional education does not work; one doesn’t round with just an MLS.
• One recommended educational approach was the sponge mode---following the IAIMS grass-roots osmosis method of learning

• one participant planned to start a journal club
• find case studies already in existence, determine what is working and what are the critical success factors
• create proof of concept models and highlight via RIME posters at the AAMC meetings

• Asked whether all librarians would become informationists, the resounding answer was NO! Informationists will be a new sub-set of the profession. There are not a lot of jobs yet
• Likely resistance by physicians was discussed. The informationist may be viewed as a passing fad---like the EBM efforts. However, NIH was highlighted as a proponent, with allies noted at the conference who have funded models (e.g. Vanderbilt, Emory, etc.)
• Next steps should include proof of concept models and highlighted via RIME posters at the AAMC meetings

• What is the attraction of the informationist?
  The new concept, the blending of first and second careers, and potentially more money paid as a specialist
• What are the liabilities?
• How to maintain skills, certification, liability and licensure
• Recommended: a listserv to continue the discussion

Informationist Concept - Table 23B

• Judy Burnham, U So Alabama
• David Owen, UCSF
• Danny O’Neal, U So Florida
• MaryLinn Bergstrom, UCSD
• Frances Cockrun, Mayo
• Peggy Tahir, UCSF
• Linda Watson, U VA
• Cheryl Dee, U So Fl

In a brief format, please list topics discussed and ideas shared.

Questions from group participants:

• Clinical medical librarians – how is this different?
• How does informationist concept relate to the basic sciences?
• What staffing is required?
• How then is the librarian viewed as a specialist?
• How would it work in the academic setting?
• Role of collaboration.
• What IS it – what is the definition??
• Is it expandable to other types of libraries, other types of settings, disciplines?
• What other models exist?

Several participants had worked in libraries with CML programs, and the similarities and differences were discussed. CMLs sometimes went on rounds, then did searches, then got back to physician. Some CME programs were very informal and very personality-dependent and relationship-oriented, i.e. they disappeared when the person in the position changed jobs. CML not institutionalized. Concern similar for informationist.

Roles: expert searcher, instructor/trainer, consulting, filtering, editing.

Informationist role may improve librarian credibility by emphasizing advanced training we’ve rec’d. A second master’s would do this. Similar to some non-health science academic settings where second master’s is required. Similar, too, to the role that Pharmacists play as members of the clinical team - they are now required to get PharmD degree. If training is "CE" then MLA could help in clearinghouse role.

Question – if we create the demand, can we meet it? Should we recruit from other health sciences, e.g., nursing, and folks who are seeking a second career? Not enough new medical librarians; need to recruit, help library schools who don’t have medical librarianship courses.

Some participants not comfortable with either role/expectations (and advanced training) or name of role (informationist).

Barriers identified: staffing limitations, relationships lacking, prioritizing skills needed, personality types, skill set needed. Might not fit corporate culture. Need to market/promote – take service to customers, rather than wait for them to come to us. Ethical issues.

How to evaluate: extent to which information needs are met; change in patient care outcomes; change in decision-making process.

What can MLA do? Have facilitated planning session to increase collaboration between professionals and graduate library schools and employers. Look at centers of excellence now providing this service/expertise, e.g., Vanderbilt, Houston. Identify best practices. Fund grants and fellowships. Define how to measure success. Identify and describe/develop different models. Establish standards, identify return on investment (ROI)/cost-benefit/pay-offs. Might collaborate with AAMC?

Old concern: some physicians are still too busy to acquire these knowledge & skills, so there is work for us. Maybe we’re concentrating too much on information literacy???

Important to learn/teach: how to formulate the clinical question. Remember the value of the reference interview. Find the teachable moment.

Ruth suggested a recent BMJ article on a similar concept: Greenhalgh T. et al "A Comparative case study of two models of a clinical informaticist service." BMJ 2002 March 2; 324:524-9.

Miscellaneous suggestions:

• Develop a promotion plan.
• Conduct a needs assessment.
• Encourage chapters to assist in providing CE, identify mini med schools, etc.
• Further PR – provide more detail of different models.
• Help members improve knowledge & skills.
• Research the questions that have been identified.
• Identify the rewards for librarians who choose to do this – salaries, jobs, recognition, etc.
• Create a credential, a certification of some kind.
• Write research grant to NLM; pull together a collaborative group to do this.
• Get members and librarians to be open to these new ideas.