Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
In 2000, Davidoff and Florance introduced a new profession, the informationist 1, and two years later a conference jointly sponsored by the Medical Library Association and the National Library of Medicine looked at the efficacy of such a profession, including the requirements and financial models necessary to make it feasible in the health care environment 2. In a 2005 New England Journal of Medicine article, Lindberg and Humphreys envisioned the future of medical libraries in 2015, including a move toward a totally electronic library with librarians becoming information specialists in context, working outside of the library with other health professionals 3. A 2008 systematic review of literature looking at the new information specialist found that a lack of qualified candidates who had additional academic qualifications and a lack of financial support for candidates with more credentials than the traditional librarian precluded the full adoption of this new professional 4. In a 2011 JAMA editorial, Davidoff and Miglus called for an expansion of the relatively nascent informationist concept in academic medical centers to support evidence-based practice 5. More literature on new roles for librarians is reviewed in a companion comment and opinion piece, “Evolution, Revolution, or Obsolescence: An Examination of Writings on the Future of Health Sciences Libraries,” published in this issue of the Journal of the Medical Library Association 6. To attempt to establish the directions that academic health sciences libraries are taking to meet future challenges, the author surveyed library directors to determine their progress toward next generation knowledge management roles, the changes in the format of their collections, the reengineering of their physical facilities, and their willingness to innovate beyond traditional library mandates.
Julie J. McGowan (Sun,) studied this question.