Thursday, August 14, 2014
Present: Marianne Burke, Kairn Kelley, Amanda Kennedy, Ben Littenberg, Connie van Eeghen
Start Up: We were too bashful to talk today – almost. But fortunately one joke about enforced non-talkers (husbands?) opened the tap considerably. See Ben for a resource for self-publishing – and the real story on what almost-positive thing he said about children.
1. Discussion: Marianne’s literature review article feedback
a. Marianne, Amanda, and Neil submitted a manuscript to the Journal of the Medical Library Association, which was rejected but will be revised and submitted to another journal. (It will also serve as the stand alone “lit review” required by the Grad College but needs to be refocused to become the first chapter of Marianne’s dissertation.) Question:
i. Where should this manuscript go next?
b. Marianne provided some back story: it was not a tightly focused lit review at the start; she added topics and expanded the search over time. The pitch is “PCPs use information resources for patient care, are successful in doing so, and affect patient care.” The audience could be practicing providers, quality improvement participants, academic providers educating the next generation, and medical students.
i. Journal of medical education (BMC Medical Education – pricey, if accepted)
ii. General journals (not so much for this article)
iii. Specialty journals (IM, FM…)
iv. American medical information (about 5 medical informatics journals)
v. Library audience (as a reference for other work)
c. Topics: for example, is it focused on primary care or does it include hospitalists or is it only physicians… select and focus. Such as:
i. Information source use; or the effect of electronic information sources in primary care, with a specific study of a dermatology information source; or the impact of information sources on primary care
ii. Other research/pub opps: NAMCES search for medical conditions related to dermatological care to answer the question: “what are the needs?” And, “how would the information resource be helpful?”
iii. Practical/policy implications: how to select information resources for medical/university libraries; what is the value of Visual Dx in terms of identifying missed diagnoses – a systematic catalogue on the pros and cons for this resource as a decision support system. Cost includes the upfront cost and the hidden costs (update, maintenance, learning time, misleading outcomes) and other issues (increased comprehension of a medical condition) – all good points for a medical library journal article. (To be tackled after the original study that makes up the dissertation.)
d. Next steps:
i. Revise manuscript and send out again – soon!
ii. Proceed with research study: IRB protocol
2. Next Workshop Meeting(s): Thursdays, 11:30 a.m. – 12:45 p.m., at Given Courtyard South Level 4. Remember: the first 15 minutes are for checking in with each other.
a. August 14: Connie: Stata analysis
b. August 21: Rodger: SIM grant application
c. August 28: (Fall semester starts Aug 25 – this time may change, but will probably continue on Thursdays; no Kairn at this session)
d. Sept 4: Kairn: draft of literature review/ quality improvement project
Posted by Connie at 8/14/2014 10:08:00 PM