Electronic resources preferred by pediatric hospitalists for clinical care

UpToDate versus DynaMed: a cross-sectional study comparing the speed and accuracy of two point-of-care information tools

Objective:

To compare the accuracy, time to answer, user confidence, and user satisfaction between UpToDate and DynaMed (formerly DynaMed Plus), which are two popular point-of-care information tools.

Methods:

A crossover study was conducted with medical residents in obstetrics and gynecology and family medicine at the University of Toronto in order to compare the speed and accuracy with which they retrieved answers to clinical questions using UpToDate and DynaMed. Experiments took place between February 2017 and December 2019. Following a short tutorial on how to use each tool and completion of a background survey, participants attempted to find answers to two clinical questions in each tool. Time to answer each question, the chosen answer, confidence score, and satisfaction score were recorded for each clinical question.

Results:

A total of 57 residents took part in the experiment, including 32 from family medicine and 25 from obstetrics and gynecology. Accuracy in clinical answers was equal between UpToDate (average 1.35 out of 2) and DynaMed (average 1.36 out of 2). However, time to answer was 2.5 minutes faster in UpToDate compared to DynaMed. Participants were also more confident and satisfied with their answers in UpToDate compared to DynaMed.

Conclusions:

Despite a preference for UpToDate and a higher confidence in responses, the accuracy of clinical answers in UpToDate was equal to those in DynaMed. Previous exposure to UpToDate likely played a major role in participants' preferences. More research in this area is recommended.

Data challenges of biomedical researchers in the age of omics

BACKGROUND

High-throughput technologies are rapidly generating large amounts of diverse omics data. Although this offers a great opportunity, it also poses great challenges as data analysis becomes more complex. The purpose of this study was to identify the main challenges researchers face in analyzing data, and how academic libraries can support them in this endeavor.

METHODS

A multimodal needs assessment analysis combined an online survey sent to 860 Yale-affiliated researchers (176 responded) and 15 in-depth one-on-one semi-structured interviews. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using NVivo 10 software according to the thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 20%. Most respondents (78%) identified lack of adequate data analysis training (e.g., R, Python) as a main challenge, in addition to not having the proper database or software (54%) to expedite analysis. Two main themes emerged from the interviews: personnel and training needs. Researchers feel they could improve data analyses practices by having better access to the appropriate bioinformatics expertise, and/or training in data analyses tools. They also reported lack of time to acquire expertise in using bioinformatics tools and poor understanding of the resources available to facilitate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The main challenges identified by our study are: lack of adequate training for data analysis (including need to learn scripting language), need for more personnel at the University to provide data analysis and training, and inadequate communication between bioinformaticians and researchers. The authors identified the positive impact of medical and/or science libraries by establishing bioinformatics support to researchers.

Creating a library holding group: an approach to large system integration

PURPOSE

Faced with resource constraints, many hospital libraries have considered joint operations. This case study describes how Providence Health & Services created a single group to provide library services.

METHODS

Using a holding group model, staff worked to unify more than 6,100 nonlibrary subscriptions and 14 internal library sites.

RESULTS

Our library services grew by unifying 2,138 nonlibrary subscriptions and 11 library sites and hiring more library staff. We expanded access to 26,018 more patrons.

CONCLUSIONS

A model with built-in flexibility allowed successful library expansion. Although challenges remain, this success points to a viable model of unified operations.