Technology Committee

March 13, 2011 Minutes

March 13, 2012, 1:00-1:30pm

Andrew thanked everyone for agreeing to serve on the committee, and stated that we'll be using Adobe Connect in the future for our meetings.

Andrea Wright; University of South Alabama- She is a combination of a technologist and librarian. She consults with students/teachers/ researchers/clinicians about what they can do with technology. Her library duties include, but are not limited to, helping students with papers

Alisha Miles; Manager of Library Services. Schwab Lib (Columbus, GA). She does a lot of everything

Megan Vonisenburg; Duke- Librarian, but works on lots of tech projects (e.g.: manages the library's iPad loaner pool; technology in healthcare setting; integrating library resources through EMR with "info" button).

Kimberley Barker-UVA; Manager for Technology Education & Computing. Kimberley manages Systems and both inward- and outward- facing computing needs for the library. She teaches classes and provides consults on a variety of topics including online identity and free web tools. She has an MLIS, but works more on the technology side of things these days.

Mary Mauldin- MUSC; Director, Center for Academic and Research Computing- Supports education; background in educational technology. Wide scope of work- fun!

Pat Hammond- Librarian at Sentara Patomic Hospital. Her technology challenges include: going from being a standalone hospital to becoming part of Sentara Health system. That challenge included surveying her library's web presence and merging its identity with the new parent instiution.

Andrew Youngkin-NN/LM; Emerging Technologies/Evaluation Coordinator. He teaches classes in emerging technologies and coordinates the Tec RAC). He was previously a Chemical reference librarian for the EPA, as well as a hospital librarian for three years in Las Vegas

Explanation of Technology RAC--Andrew
Most of us are new to this (though Pat has been on the committee before), and Andrew emphasized that we're learning together. Yesterday he sent us the emails containing award applications- this is a new process for the RML. Helpful for everyone to know about awards, etc. Andrew said that our input on these applications is important, but says that we shouldn't stress over it. He advised that our gut reactions to the applications is usually superior to thinking/agonizing over them. There's no pressure! Be calm! :)  This is one of our more substantial commitments, and we should have our evaluations returned to Andrew by this Friday, the 16th.
Andrew included these bullet points explaining with what the committee is tasked- we'll be working within these to set goals, etc.

  • Advising the RML on appropriate mechanisms within the framework of the NN/LM contract for developing and implementing programs to improve health professionals’ and the public’s access to biomedical information;
  • Advising on regional priorities or policies and procedures as they relate to SE/A programs and services;
  • Advising on regional priorities or policies and procedures as they relate to the development and implementation of a regional emergency preparedness plan, document delivery plan and others;
  • Devising a method to evaluate programs and services;
  • Assisting in needs assessment by monitoring activities in their state, regional area, profession or health concern to improve access to and delivery of health information;
  • Developing plans to encourage health professionals and health sciences librarians to participate actively in regional and national programs affecting delivery of health information;
  • Assisting in the identification of health professionals without access to health information and recommending ways to assist them through SE/A programs;
  • Suggesting methods and mechanisms for outreach to new target groups or those identified by NLM initiatives;
  • Suggesting methods and mechanism to enhance the roles of librarians, advocate for librarians and libraries, and develop leadership in the profession;
  • Providing feedback on programs and services through participation on a RAC, or other methods deemed appropriate;
  • Developing ideas for forums or summits of regional interest;
  • Suggesting agencies for partnerships to support outreach programs to health consumers and health professionals; and
  • Advising on how best to leverage emerging technology to deliver information in education or health care settings.

In future meetings, we'll set objectives, but not today. The mission : the NLM contract requires that each NLM have a RAC. Purpose is to provide advice on carrying out RML mission; help communicate the role. Tec RAC is one of 5 RAC's (access, emeregeny, outreach, and consumer health) There are specific mechanisms in which each RAC operates. Andrew asked about past experiences with the RAC and if there was anything to add. Andrew explained Kimberle's role as chair (representing committee at in-person meetings, etc). We'll try to meet quarterly (June will be the next one), and Andrew will send an email closer to then asking for convenient dates/times.
One final thought: Andrew assumes that one or all will keep up with RML and news within the region: use SEA Currents, DOCline, and NLM Technical Bulletin. We should push those resources to colleagues and other libraries. Part of our mission is to share those information avenues. Lots of ideas are triggered by sharing information from those sources.

Award Application Review--Andrew
Mary asked about conflict of interest with an application that she received. Andrew asked her to let him know which one that it was, so that he can switch it out for another one. He also asked that we alert him to any such issues.
Pat asked that Andrew share the info re: the funding budget that Dale Prince shared recently. In the past it's been set up that the first round of awards goes with $20 K, etc, and subsequent awards are for lesser amounts. Dale says that we shouldn't let the budget be a determinant in whether or not we choose to fund something (if they're all worth funding, then we should say so!). Andrew reiterated that we should read the apps for holes (for instance, if you need more info about any part of an application). The budget is more constrained today than it has been in the past- but Andrew doesn't have specifics from Dale at this point. Pat agrees that it seems that the budget is fluid at this point. 
Pat also asked specifically about two of the applications that she's received: one asks for iPad 3's and another asks for iPad 2's: should we recommend that they go for 3's? Pat asked Megan what she thought: Megan said that their reasoning in asking for 2's might be that they want to spend less on devices and more on something else. Andrea or Alisha (sorry, but I'm not sure who it was!) pointed out that the enhanced screen on the 3's will make a huge difference for radiologists, etc- and also said that the 3's have more processing power. Andrew agreed that those were great questions, and that those sorts of things should definitely be addressed by us, the award readers.


We all said a fond farewell :)


Kimberley R. Barker, MLIS
Manager for Technology Education & Computing
Claude Moore Health Sciences Library
University of Virginia