Sorry, this would have been a better link.  From about 1 year ago, a summary
of comments from MEDLIB-L subscribers on UpToDate, FirstConsult, and
Dynamed.


http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0511B&L=MEDLIB-L&P=R1715&I=-3




On 11/3/06, David Rothman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 >
 > See previous thread from MEDLIB-L Archives, "UpToDate versus DynaMed":
 > http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0611A&L=MEDLIB-L&P=R3289&I=-3
 >
 > Also see:
 > "For comparison purposes, other resources that fall into the same clinical
 > evidence-based category are UpToDate and FIRSTConsult. Like FIRSTConsult,
 > DynaMed is targeted to primary care providers, while UpToDate is aimed at
 > internal medicine and selected subspecialty practitioners. Also like
 > FIRSTConsult, its structure and content format is designed for quick lookup
 > at the point of care. Primary care providers including physicians,
 > residents, physicians' assistants, and nurse practitioners are the target
 > users for this database and would find it very useful. This resource would
 > also be very useful to health sciences students."
 > DynaMed
 > J Med Libr Assoc. 2005 July; 93(3): 412–414.
 > http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1175815
 >
 > Best,
 >
 > -David
 >
 > http://davidrothman.net
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > On 11/3/06, Johnson, James R <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 > >
 > > My impression from the reviews is that DynaMed is aimed more at the
 > > primary care setting while UpToDate is more geared to the medical
 > > specialties.  Is that a fair assessment?
 > >
 > >
 > > James R Johnson  MSLS
 > > VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System
 > > Aspinwall Library 142D-A
 > > Delafield Road
 > > Pittsburgh PA 15240
 > >
 > > phone (412) 784-3747
 > > fax     (412) 784-3508
 > > [log in to unmask]
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > -----Original Message-----
 > > From: Medical Libraries Discussion List
 > > [mailto:[log in to unmask] ] On Behalf Of Joseph, Claire
 > > Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 8:55 AM
 > > To: [log in to unmask]
 > > Subject: Re: UpToDate: a Rant
 > >
 > > Hi--We just got DynaMed; it really is a superior product, but it has a
 > > different format, really "point of care" (as it's advertised) rather
 > > than the "essay" style of UpToDate.  The docs are familiar with UpToDate
 > > and are reluctant to change, but DynaMed is affordable while UpToDate is
 > >
 > > not.
 > > If anyone has any ideas about MARKETING DynaMed, please let me know!
 > > Thanks,
 > > Claire
 > >
 > > Claire B. Joseph, MS, MA, AHIP
 > > Director, Medical Library
 > > South Nassau Communities Hospital
 > > One Healthy Way
 > > Oceanside, NY  11572
 > > 516-632-3452 (phone)
 > > 516-766-3857 (fax)
 > > [log in to unmask]
 > > -----Original Message-----
 > > From: Medical Libraries Discussion List
 > > [mailto: [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Dillon
 > > Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 8:36 AM
 > > To: [log in to unmask]
 > > Subject: Re: UpToDate: a Rant
 > >
 > > We are also in the process of renewal and have been looking at options
 > > for our large, multi-hospital system where our number one question is -
 > > "Can I access UTD from home."  Questions about access arose as a result
 > > of questionnaires UTD required from our IT department.  We also had a
 > > site visit from UTD which provided me an opportunity to express how
 > > out-of-date their business model is.
 > >
 > > We have had a trial for DynaMed for the past two months and have
 > > received some positive response; however, the product does not yet meet
 > > the needs of our customers.  UTD has done their job marketing to
 > > physicians and change to another vendor will be a huge dissatisfier. I
 > > have asked some of the docs to express concern about the remote access
 > > issue to UTD reps should they see them at conferences.  Perhaps their
 > > opinion will have some impact. I will keep looking options.
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > Karen Dillon, MLS
 > > Manager, Library Services
 > > Carilion Health System
 > > PO Box 13367, Roanoke, VA 24033
 > > 540.981.7258 (v) 540.981.8666 (f)
 > > [log in to unmask]
 > >
 > > >>> Susan Klawansky             <[log in to unmask]>
 > > 11/2/2006 5:42:03 PM >>>
 > > Hi Medlibbers - I MUST share this information; it's just too
 > > unbelievable.
 > >
 > > We've subscribed to UpToDate for several years, and our renewal is upon
 > > us.
 > > We were recently sent a form to complete, in which we had to verify
 > > that the statistics we submit to the AHA (upon which UTD bases its
 > > hospital subscription costs) were accurate, and that all our satellite
 > > locations were represented in those figures.
 > >
 > > So, what, we lied to the AHA, but will now tell the truth to UTD???
 > >
 > > In addition, it appears that UTD went trolling on our website, and
 > > discovered several satellite locations they didn't know about.  Those
 > > locations don't see patients (they are research facilities within larger
 > > office buildings in the same city as our hospital) and are the result of
 > >
 > > insufficient space on our main campus.  So, UTD asked for numbers of
 > > physicians who work out of those locations.
 > >
 > > After scrounging around for the numbers, I reported back - 27 physicians
 > > work there part time (the rest of the time they're back on our main
 > > campus or elsewhere).
 > >
 > > Today, UTD called me, and here's what they're offering: pretty much the
 > > same price (roughly $XX,XXX) as last year for all the locations they
 > > previously knew about AND ANOTHER $XX,XXX to cover the 27 physicians who
 > >
 > > work part time out of the two research facilities (because they are not
 > > covered in the patient statistics).  Or, I can cut those locations out,
 > > so when a doc is standing on our main campus she can use UTD, but when
 > > she's standing in her research office she can't.  Though all our
 > > locations are on a single computer network, our IT staff would have to
 > > find a way to restrict access to UTD to those two locations AND certify
 > > to UTD that they had done so.
 > >
 > > ARE THESE PEOPLE INSANE??  Really, in all my years of doing this work,
 > > I've never encountered such irrational, paranoid, punitive behavior in a
 > > vendor.
 > > Sure, we all know about the greed and the incompetence of some vendors,
 > > but this rises to a whole new level of arrogance.
 > >
 > > Toward the end of the conversation, they told me that our usage was
 > > three times greater than other hospitals of our type, implying that
 > > either there was some kind of malfeasance going on, or that we must be
 > > prepared to pay for our crime of actually using their product.
 > >
 > > Just for some basic information, we're a private, not-for-profit
 > > pediatric teaching hospital.  We are unaffiliated (in terms of
 > > ownership) with any other institution.  We have a single administration.
 > >
 > >
 > > This kind of egregious behavior has to be shared.  I pray fervently that
 > > sooner rather than later, I can dump UTD in favor of something else.
 > > Of
 > > course when I said that to my callers, they had no response.  I don't
 > > think they would care in the least.
 > >
 > > Susan Klawansky
 > > Children's Hospital & Regional Medical Center Seattle, WA
 > > [log in to unmask]
 > > _____
 > >
 > > This message contains confidential information and is intended only for
 > > the individual named, access to it by anyone else is unauthorized. If
 > > you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute,
 > > disclose, copy or take any action in reliance of this e-mail. Please
 > > immediately contact the sender as well as notify the sender immediately
 > > by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this
 > > e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be
 > > secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted,
 > > lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses (the
 > > recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence
 > > of viruses). The sender therefore does not accept liability for any
 > > errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a
 > > result of e-mail transmission. Our company accepts no liability for the
 > > content of this e-mail, or for the consequences of any actions taken on
 > > the basis of the information provided, unless that information is
 > > subsequently confirmed in writing by an authorized individual. If
 > > verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
 > >
 > > If you have received this communication in error, please call (516)
 > > 632-4357. Thank You.
 > >
 > > _____
 > >
 >
 >