A case study: planning a statewide information resource for health
professionals: an evidence-based approach
Erinn E. Aspinall, MSI, AHIP; Katherine Chew, MLS; Linda Watson, MLS, AHIP, FMLA;
Mary Parker, MA
See end of article for authors’ affiliations. DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.97.4.007
Question: What is the best approach for
implementing a statewide electronic health library
(eHL) to serve all health professionals in Minnesota?
Setting: The research took place at the University of
Minnesota Health Sciences Libraries.
Methods: In January 2008, the authors began
planning a statewide eHL for health professionals
following the five-step process for evidence-based
librarianship: formulating the question, finding the
best evidence, appraising the evidence, assessing
costs and benefits, and evaluating the effectiveness of
resulting actions.
Main Results: The authors identified best practices
for developing a statewide eHL for health
professionals relating to audience or population
served, information resources, technology and access,
funding model, and implementation and
sustainability. They were compared to the mission of
the eHL project to drive strategic directions by
developing recommendations.
Conclusion: EBL can guide the planning process for a
statewide eHL, but findings must be tailored to the
local environment to address information needs and
ensure long-term sustainability.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Area-wide electronic health libraries (eHLs) that
provide broad access to clinical-level information—
such as electronic books, journals, guidelines, and
drug information—are becoming more common on
national and international levels. The growing num-
ber of eHLs reflects the increased awareness that
health professionals require access to the latest
evidence-based information in order to provide
quality care. In response to this recognized need, the
Health Sciences Libraries (HSL) at the University of
Minnesota conducted an evidence-based feasibility
study between January and September 2008 to
determine the best approach for implementing an
eHL that would serve all health professionals in
Minnesota. The work was guided by the mission of
the Minnesota eHL project, which was to foster
clinical excellence by providing equitable access to
quality, evidence-based health information for all of
Minnesota’s health practitioners, researchers, and
students and to provide accurate health information
to every citizen of Minnesota so they can become
engaged in the patient-care partnership and make
informed decisions.
SETTING
The eHL project was coordinated by the HSL in close
partnership with Minitex. The HSL plays a prominent
role in providing health information outreach to the
state. It supports the goal of the University of
Minnesota Academic Health Center to ‘‘expedite the
dissemination and application of new knowledge into
the promotion of health and delivery of health care in
Minnesota’’ [1]. The HSL is a Resource Library for the
National Library of Medicine’s National Network of
Libraries of Medicine, with an additional designation
as an Outreach Library. The HSL also serves the state
through its support of the Academic Health Center’s
land grant mission, which includes the primary role
of educating health care professionals and generating
and disseminating new knowledge to improve the
health of Minnesotans [2].
Minitex is a publicly supported network of aca-
demic, public, state government, kindergarten-
through-twelfth-grade school, and special libraries
working cooperatively to improve library services for
their users in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South
Dakota. It is an information- and resource-sharing
program of the Office of Higher Education and the
University of Minnesota Libraries that is funded by
the Minnesota Legislature. The Minnesota State
Library Services, a unit of the Minnesota Department
of Education, provides additional funding to support
services for Minnesota libraries.
With the combined goals of disseminating new
knowledge to promote health and improving library
services for Minnesotans, a partnership between the
HSL and Minitex was a natural fit for developing an
eHL for the state. The HSL’s partnership with Minitex
provided the added benefit of building on an estab-
lished infrastructure made available through the Elec-
tronic Library for Minnesota (ELM) ,http://www
.elm4you.org.. ELM is an information portal that
provides streamlined access to information resources
for Minnesotans via statewide Internet protocol (IP)
authentication.
The partnership between the HSL and Minitex
provided sufficient capacity to support an eHL for
the state. The timing for the project was also found to
be appropriate in terms of infrastructure, need,
stakeholder support, and strategic alignment. Regard-
ing infrastructure, research has indicated that the
state’s health professionals and Minnesota households
have sufficient access to computers and the Internet [3,
246 J Med Libr Assoc 97(4) October 2009

4]. Regarding need, inequalities in patient care have
been seen both nationally and throughout Minnesota
[5–8]. Additionally, the state’s 40,000 health profes-
sions students and 160,000 licensed health profession-
als have benefited from different levels of access to
evidence-based clinical information, depending on
their institutional affiliations [9, 10]. Regarding stake-
holder support, the concept of a statewide eHL has
received strong support from university administra-
tion, health care organizations and representatives,
and health sciences and other libraries across the state.
Finally, regarding strategic alignment, the eHL project
aligned with several health care reform initiatives in
the state during 2007 and 2008 [5, 11, 12]. The final
reports from these initiatives incorporated language
that related to the importance of evidence-based health
information, the involvement of patients in the health
care process, and the goal of implementing a statewide
electronic health record system that could serve as a
delivery mechanism for eHL materials. This evidence
was taken into account when determining the viability
for an eHL in Minnesota as each of these aspects would
impact its ultimate success.
METHODOLOGY
The eHL project activities followed the five-step
evidence-based librarianship (EBL) process as defined
by Eldredge [13]:
1. formulate a clearly defined, relevant, and answer-
able question;
2. search for an answer in both the published and
unpublished literature, plus any other authoritative
resources, for the best available evidence;
3. critically appraise the evidence;
4. assess the relative value of expected benefits and
costs of any decided upon action plan; and
5. evaluate the effectiveness of the action plan.
Formulating the question
The question formulation process was guided by the
EBL setting, perspective, intervention, comparison,
and evaluation (SPICE) template for question build-
ing [14]. Using this framework, the following question
was developed to guide the eHL planning process:
What is the best model for providing equitable access to
relevant information resources for all health professionals in
Minnesota, as compared to the best practices used by
existing area-wide eHLs from outside of the state, that
would align with local needs and resources?
In this case, the setting is Minnesota, the perspec-
tive is health professionals, the intervention is the
model of equitable access, the comparison is existing
best practices, and the evaluation is alignment with
local needs and resources.
Finding the evidence
After developing a structured question to guide the
EBL process, work was done to find relevant
evidence. Because evidence was lacking in traditional
publication venues, a multistep process was em-
ployed to locate other information sources that could
address the original question. This included an
environmental scan and an information resource
assessment. These tasks were aimed at gathering best
practices in the following areas: audience or popula-
tion served, information resources, technology and
access, funding model, and implementation and
sustainability.
Performing an environmental scan*
The environmental scan was a two-step process that
included a competitive analysis and a questionnaire
that surveyed health sciences librarians about projects
that license clinical information for unaffiliated health
professionals [15]. For the competitive analysis, a
review of projects that provided area-wide services to
non-affiliates was completed. A total of nine projects
were identified through an Internet search using
selected keywords with the Google search engine
(Table 1). The project websites were reviewed to
gather information related to population served and
eligibility, available information resources, technolo-
gy and access restrictions, and funding models. This
information was placed in a matrix, and an additional
column was added to capture information relating to
the implementation and continued sustainability of
eHLs. A literature review was also conducted as part
of the competitive analysis to identify information
that would supplement the findings from the review
of project websites. A total of twelve articles were
located by searching library literature databases
(Library, Information Science & Technology Ab-
stracts, Library Literature & Information Science)
and medical literature databases (PubMed), as well
as gray literature (Google Scholar), on keywords
related to the selected projects (e.g., AZHIN, Ohio-
LINK) [15]. New information located through this
process was added to the competitive analysis matrix
in the categories described above.
For the second part of the environmental scan, a
questionnaire was developed to serve as an additional
means of gathering information about statewide
initiatives outside of Minnesota that license clinical
information for unaffiliated health professionals [16].
The 36-question instrument focused on best practices
in the following categories: population served, infor-
mation resources, technology and access, funding
models, and sustainability. An additional comments
section was included to gather information not
addressed in the structured questions. This question-
naire was reviewed and approved by the HSL
* Supplemental material can be found in the My Health Minnesota:
Electronic Health Library collection, housed in the University Digital
Conservancy, the University of Minnesota’s Institutional Repository
,http://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/47090/browse-title.. Col-
lection documents include the environmental scan (which incorpo-
rates the competitive analysis), the information needs assessment, the
best practices survey, a promotional information sheet, the request
for information, and the final report.
A case study
J Med Libr Assoc 97(4) October 2009 247

director. Institutional review board approval for the
survey protocol was granted through the University
of Minnesota’s Office of the Vice President for
Research, and the questionnaire was distributed via
a web-based survey tool. Respondents were recruited
based on their membership in the Association of
Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL). The
AAHSL email discussion list was used to send out an
announcement of the upcoming survey, the question-
naire, and 2 reminder notices. This procedure
followed the Dillman total design survey method,
modified to accommodate a quick turn-around time
[17]. Forty-eight of the 143 AAHSL member institu-
tions responded to the survey, for a response rate of
33%. Following the close of the survey, aggregate and
individual data were generated using the web-based
survey tool. The survey data were analyzed by the
project manager. Key findings were summarized, and
identifiable information was removed before it was
distributed to the project team and the AAHSL email
discussion list in a final report [16].
Analyzing information resources
As part of the information resource analysis, a
questionnaire was developed to identify a set of
resources that would meet the information needs of
the state’s health professionals [18]. The methodology
for the information resources survey matched that of
the best practices survey described above, including
the process for the survey design, approval, imple-
mentation, analysis, and distribution of results. The
19-question instrument focused on topics related to
project support, current resource usage, information
needs and gaps, and best practices, and it included a
comments section to gather information not ad-
dressed in the structured questions. Respondents
were recruited based on their membership in the
Health Sciences Libraries of Minnesota (HSLM)
association. Thirty-five of 71 HSLM members re-
sponded to the survey, for a response rate of 46%.
The information resources survey results were
combined with the findings of a 2005 survey on the
information needs of community-based preceptors
working for the University of Minnesota Academic
Health Center [3]. Questions in this survey related to
the value of access to online resources, resources
currently available, and ranking of specific resources.
The nearly 500 respondents represented a broad range
of health professionals, including family practitioners,
nurses, physical and occupational therapists, genetic
counselors, medical technicians, and pharmacists.
Additionally, usage statistics were analyzed to iden-
tify the high-use resources that the HSL’s patrons
access.
The findings from the environmental scan and
information resource analysis were used to identify
resources, access, pricing, and technology require-
ments that addressed local needs. Emails were then
sent to vendors to inquire about their ability to meet
these criteria. Vendors had varied responses to the
emails. While some expressed initial support, others
voiced concerns about losing individual subscrip-
tions, incurring liability for providing clinical infor-
mation to health consumers, and controlling access. In
some cases, initial emails were followed by conference
calls with vendor representatives to provide addi-
tional details and to address concerns. After the initial
and follow-up conversations with vendors, a request
for information (RFI) was issued through the Univer-
sity of Minnesota’s Purchasing Services to gather
structured information on the capacity of information
vendors to respond to the eHL’s specific project
requirements [19].
Table 1
Electronic health library (eHL) competitive analysis projects
Project name/organization Uniform resource locator (URL) Audience
Arizona Health information Network (AZHIN)/
University of Arizona Health Sciences Library
http://www.azhin.org Serves the Arizona Health Sciences Library, the major
teaching hospitals in Arizona, The University of Arizona
College of Medicine, and the Arizona Area Health
Education Centers
Electronic Health Library of BC (e-HLbc) http://www.ehlbc.ca Serves 6 British Columbia (BC) health authorities, 24
publicly funded postsecondary institutions, 3 provincial
ministries, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of
BC, and the Physiotherapy Association of BC
Georgia Interactive Network (GaIN)/Mercer
Medical Library
http://gainweb.mercer.edu Serves health care institutions in Georgia, including over 50
institutional members, representing hospitals, clinics,
and public health departments
HEAL-WA/University of Washington Health
Sciences Library
http://www.heal-wa.org Serves specified, licensed health care professionals in
Washington state
Library Consortium of Health Institutions in
Buffalo (LCHIB)
http://hubnet.buffalo.edu Serves individuals affiliated with hospitals, health sciences
schools, health sciences libraries, and other health-
related organizations throughout western New York
OhioLINK http://www.ohiolink.edu Serves 16 public or research universities, 23 community or
technical colleges, 50 private colleges, and the State
Library of Ohio
Prepaid Articles Service at Medical College of
Wisconsin (MCW) Libraries
http://www.mcw.edu/mcwlibraries/
prepaidarticles.htm
Serves the MCW, Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, and
Froedtert Hospital
TexShare http://www.texshare.edu Serves over 700 public and academic libraries and libraries
of clinical medicine in Texas
Virtual Library of Virginia (VIVA) http://www.vivalib.org Serves Virginia’s 39 state-assisted colleges and
universities, 33 private, nonprofit institutions, and the
Library of Virginia
Aspinall et al.
248 J Med Libr Assoc 97(4) October 2009

RESULTS
Best practices
The multistep process used to gather evidence related
to eHL implementation helped identify best practices
in the areas of population served or audience,
technology and access, funding model, and imple-
mentation and sustainability (Table 2). In summary, it
was found that eHLs typically serve health profes-
sionals based on institutional affiliation, that the
service is usually provided by academic health
sciences libraries, that a mixed model approach is
typically used to fund eHLs, and that eHLs should be
supported by two to five full-time equivalents and
employ a governing body for oversight.
Through the RFI process, it was found that several
information vendors were able to respond favorably
to the project requirements that reflected the infor-
mation needs of health professionals in the state, as
well as specific technology, access, and cost require-
ments. The criteria included in the RFI stated that the
suite of resources provided by the vendors must:
& represent the needs of a broad range of health
professionals (physicians and nurses in particular);
& provide access to the following categories of
resources: evidence-based medicine and evidence-
based nursing point-of-care products, clinical drug
references, full-text medical and nursing electronic
journals, full-text medical and nursing electronic
books, general medical and nursing bibliographical
databases, and the Cochrane Library;
& be provided at a realistic and feasible cost, to be
evaluated based on the annual price per health
professional or health professions student user;
& be accessible via the ELM portal’s statewide IP
authentication system;
& allow unlimited access or access for a large number
of concurrent users; and
& be reasonable for a staff of one to two full-time
equivalents to manage (Note: one to two full-time
equivalents were detailed in the RFI, as opposed to
the two to five recommended by best practices
because a portion of the workload would overlap
with the current responsibilities of the HSL and
Minitex staff) [19].
Appraisal of the evidence
Once the best practices were identified, work was
done to appraise the evidence. The appraisal was
conducted by comparing the best practices with the
mission of the eHL, while taking into consideration
the project team’s expertise as health information
professionals working in Minnesota. During the
appraisal process, it was found that the timing for
eHL implementation in Minnesota was appropriate in
terms of capacity, infrastructure, need, stakeholder
support, and strategic alignment, as described in the
‘‘Setting’’ section of this case study. However, the best
practice of providing access based on institutional
affiliation would significantly limit the project’s
mission of providing equitable access for all of
Minnesota’s health professionals. Additionally, insti-
tutional-based access would limit use by the state’s
health consumers. As a result, this best practice would
not support the project’s goal of providing accurate
health information to the citizens of the state so that
they can become engaged in the patient-care partner-
ship and make informed health decisions.
The findings of the appraisal process led to the
formation of recommendations that were based on the
best practices gathered through the EBL process,
modified to reflect the project goals and knowledge of
the local environment (Table 3). Most notably, the eHL
project team recommended that resources should be
selected based on the needs of the project’s primary
audience, the state’s licensed health professionals, but
that access should be granted to all health practitioners,
researchers, and students, regardless of institutional
affiliation, and to all of Minnesota’s five million citizens.
DISCUSSION
The EBL process of formulating the question, finding
the best evidence, and appraising the evidence
provided sufficient data to develop recommendations
Table 2
Best practices for eHLs
Category Best practices
Audience or population served & eHLs typically restrict access to a defined set of health professionals and often require that individuals belong to
a member institution to benefit from services.
Information resources & eHLs typically license resources that are evidence based and that support the information needs of a broad
range of health care providers.
Technology and access & eHLs are typically coordinated by academic health sciences libraries.
& Onsite access is typically granted to member organizations through Internet protocol (IP) verification.
& Offsite (remote) access is typically provided by member organizations to their affiliates through the use of a
proxy server, when available.
Funding model & eHLs are typically funded using a mixed-model approach, with revenue coming from membership fees, grants,
and government funding.
& eHLs are typically more sustainable over time when they receive the bulk of their financial support from recurring
state funds, though they often supplement costs in other ways (e.g., grants, membership fees).
& eHLs have typically received recurring state funds from departments of health and/or education.
Implementation and sustainability & eHLs would ideally employ between 2 and 5 full-time equivalents.
& eHLs are typically guided by governing bodies, with work being carried out by the project team and by
subcommittees working toward a specific charge.
& eHLs typically provide value-added services, either for free or at an added cost.
A case study
J Med Libr Assoc 97(4) October 2009 249

for eHL implementation in Minnesota. However, as
indicated by EBL guidelines, it is important to
examine the value of the data by assessing costs and
benefits and evaluating the effectiveness of resulting
actions.
Assessing costs and benefits
With recommendations in hand, work was done to
evaluate their feasibility through a cost-benefit analy-
sis. The eHL promised many positive results in terms
of social benefits. These included contributing to an
integrated and evidence-based health care system in
Minnesota, which would enable patients to become
partners in care, support continuous learning through
the education process and into clinical practice,
encourage recruitment and retention of Minnesota’s
rural health professionals, and support collaborative
and practice-based health research, among others. The
eHL would also have positive financial benefits as it
would leverage economies of scale and buying power
for equitable access to resources, leverage existing
investments in information management and technol-
ogy provided by the HSL and Minitex, and ultimately,
reduce health care costs.
In addition to these social and financial benefits, it
was determined that eHL implementation would
carry little risk, as it was supported by best practices,
reflected the needs of the state, and was fiscally
responsible. However, the eHL recommendations
were built on certain assumptions that would have
to be addressed to ensure successful implementation.
This was done by completing a risk assessment that
detailed project assumptions along with their related
mitigating actions and dependencies (Table 4).
Evaluating the results
The planning process for the eHL concluded in
September 2008, with implementation set to begin in
spring 2009. The timetable incorporated a 2-phase
implementation schedule. Phase I of the plan was
estimated to cost $1.2 million a year, based on the
numbers provided by vendors in their responses to
the RFI. With approximately 200,000 primary users of
eHL resources (i.e., licensed health professionals and
enrolled health professions students), this equated to
an estimated annual cost per user of $6.00. These
funds were to be requested for a 2-year period from
Minnesota’s health systems with additional contribu-
tions from the University of Minnesota Academic
Health Center. This shared cost-funding model would
have supported the licensing of both an evidence-
based medicine and an evidence-based nursing
product that would be made available to Minnesota’s
health professionals and to every citizen of the state.
The two years of funding provided by Minnesota’s
health systems would have allowed for an outcomes-
Table 3
Minnesota eHL recommendations
Category Recommendations
Audience or population served & The eHL should be made available to all of Minnesota’s health professionals (i.e., health practitioners, researchers, and
students) regardless of their institutional affiliation.
& The eHL should be made available to all of Minnesota’s 5 million citizens.
& The primary audience for the eHL should be all licensed health professionals in Minnesota.*
Information resources & eHL resources should be relevant to health professionals. Resources that are specifically aimed at a general (consumer)
audience should not be considered.*
& eHL resources should represent the needs of a broad range of specialists (e.g., administrators, physicians, nurses,
pharmacists, mental/behavioral health specialists), and physicians and nurses in particular.*
& eHL resources should support evidence-based practice.*
& Specific resources should be selected with input from stakeholders.
& The eHL should provide access to following categories of resources: evidence-based medicine/point-of-care product,
evidence-based nursing/point-of-care product, clinical (professional-level) drug reference, full-text medical and nursing
electronic journals, full-text medical and nursing electronic books, general medical and nursing bibliographical databases,
and the Cochrane Library.
Technology and access & The University of Minnesota University Libraries, represented by the Health Sciences Libraries (HSL) and Minitex, should
coordinate statewide access to resources.*
& The eHL should be made available through the Electronic Library for Minnesota (ELM), which is operated and
administered by Minitex.
& eHL resources should support IP access. Resources requiring individual login/password should not be considered.*
& eHL resources should allow access for every citizen of Minnesota. Resources that limit use to health professionals or
health professions students should not be considered.
& eHL resources should allow unlimited access or access for a large number of concurrent users.
Funding model & The funding model should cover the costs of the licensed resources, as well as the staff to support initial implementation
and long-term maintenance.
& A mixed funding model with multiple revenue streams should be employed to support the eHL.*
& Recurring state funds should be sought as one eHL revenue stream.*
& Varying methods of recurring funds should be explored with stakeholders to see which model(s) might be best received by
the legislature and other funding agencies.
& Selected information resources must be provided at a realistic/feasible cost, to be evaluated based on a $5.00–$10.00
annual price per health professional/health professions student.
& License agreements should be negotiated for a 3–5 year period to leverage buying power.
& The funding model should include support for maintaining Go Local as part of the My Health Minnesota suite of resources.
Implementation and sustainability & The eHL should be supported by a minimum staff of 2 full-time equivalents.*
& The eHL should be guided by a governing body made up of key stakeholders.*
& The work of the eHL should be carried out by subcommittees with representatives from medical and other libraries.*
* Based on best practices.
Aspinall et al.
250 J Med Libr Assoc 97(4) October 2009

based evaluation of the eHL, determining its success-
es and areas for improvement. The use of a proof-of-
concept approach that would incorporate evaluation
measures would illustrate the value of the eHL to the
state’s governing bodies and help prepare for phase II
of the project, which would include a legislative
proposal for recurring state funds in 2011.
The timing for the two-phase implementation plan
coincided with the severe economic downturn that
occurred in fall 2008 that affected not only the
university, but the state’s health systems as well. As
a result, the implementation process has been delayed
until the state’s economy proves to be more stable.
While the delayed implementation of the eHL
limited formal evaluation of outcomes, the EBL process
was deemed successful for several reasons. First, it was
found that the question formulated by following EBL
guidelines was indeed answerable. Second, by com-
paring the findings with professional expertise and the
mission of the eHL project, recommendations were
generated that aligned with local needs and resources,
thereby satisfying the evaluation measure identified in
the original EBL SPICE question. Finally, the recom-
mendations formed the basis of a plan that was
sensitive to possible risks, that has proved to remain
relevant over time, and that can be put into practice
when resources become available.
CONCLUSION
Through the EBL process, data were gathered that
strengthened the authors’ confidence in their ability to
select, license, and deploy a suite of electronic
resources that aligned with best practices and met
local needs. The evidence-based feasibility study also
showed the importance of integrating sustainability
planning into an eHL project in order to support long-
term success. This was done by engaging stakeholders
in the planning process, ensuring adequate capacity
and infrastructure to support an eHL, and aligning
the proposal with statewide health initiatives. As
resources become available to implement Minnesota’s
eHL, additional work will be done to evaluate the
program and illustrate the extent to which equitable
access to clinical information can support quality,
cost-effective health care.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the work done by the
Electronic Health Library of British Columbia (e-
HLbc). The e-HLbc’s Business Case and other sup-
porting documents were valuable references through-
out the feasibility study for an eHL in Minnesota.
REFERENCES
1. University of Minnesota, Academic Health Center. AHC
strategic plan [Internet]. The University; 2005 [rev 20 May
2008; cited 27 Apr 2009]. ,http://www.ahc.umn.edu/
about/cerra/strategicplan/home.html..
2. University of Minnesota, Academic Health Center. AHC
strategic planning process phase II - report on defining
question no. 1: what is our role in the health of Minnesotans;
our land grant mission? [Internet]. The University; 2000 [rev 7
Jun 2000; cited 27 Apr 2009]. ,http://purl.umn.edu/5485..
3. University of Minnesota, Academic Health Center,
Minnesota AHEC, Bio-Medical Library. Survey of precep-
tors for the health sciences programs at the University of
Minnesota [unpublished data]. The University; 2005.
4. Center for Rural Policy and Development. The 2007
Minnesota Internet survey: tracking the progress of broad-
band [Internet]. The Center; 2008 [rev Jun 2008; cited 27 Apr
2009]. ,http://www.mnsu.edu/ruralmn/pages/Publications/
reports/2007telecomreport.pdf..
5. Health Care Transformation Task Force. Health Care
Transformation Task Force recommendations submitted to:
Governor Tim Pawlenty and the Minnesota State Legisla-
ture [Internet]. The Task Force; 2008 [rev Jan 2008; cited 27
Apr 2009]. ,http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/hpsc/
hep/transform/ttfreportfinal.pdf..
6. Mangione-Smith R, DeCristofaro AM, Setodji CM,
Keesey J, Klein DJ, Adams JL, Schuster MA, McGlynn EA.
The quality of ambulatory care delivered to children in the
United States. N Engl J Med. 2007 Oct 11;357(15):1515–23.
7. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks J,
DeCristofaro A, Kerr EA. The quality of health care
delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med.
2003 Jun 26;348(26):2635–45.
Table 4
Assumptions related to eHL implementation
Assumption Mitigating actions Dependencies
The partnership between the HSL and Minitex
will continue.
Development of a memorandum of understanding
to be signed by both partners.
Partners can identify agreeable terms.
Resources will be made available through the ELM
portal, operated and administered by Minitex.
Identification of vendors who can work
within the eHL model.
Vendors are willing and able to provide access
according to the eHL’s ‘‘equal access’’ model.
Recurring funds for the eHL will be secured. Development of a legislative proposal for
eHL support.
Buy-in from key stakeholders in the academic health
center, the University of Minnesota, and elsewhere.
The funding model will cover the costs of
resources and staff.
Incorporation of salary for 2 full-time equivalents;
negotiation of fixed pricing, secured through a
formal request for proposal (RFP) process.
Resource pricing and salary estimates are accurate
and will remain relatively stable over time.
Resources will be licensed for an annual cost
of $5–$10 per health care user, which is
equivalent to a total annual cost of $1–$2 million.
Selection of resources to match projected costs. Vendor quotes align with cost estimates.
The eHL will work under a model of shared
governance, made up of a steering committee
and subcommittees.
Identification of the makeup of the steering
committee and initial contact to test feasibility.
Support from health care organizations, health
professions programs, and health sciences and
other libraries across the state.
User support will be coordinated by the HSL but
carried out by partner libraries in Minnesota.
Development of an informal partnership
agreement that identifies an eHL champion
in each partner organization.
Support from health sciences and other libraries
across the state.
A case study
J Med Libr Assoc 97(4) October 2009 251

8. Minnesota Community Measurement. Minnesota Health-
Scores [Internet]. [cited 27 Apr 2009]. ,http://www
.mnhealthcare.org..
9. Minnesota Office of Higher Education. Enrollment data
search [Internet]. The Office [rev 2006; cited 27 Apr 2009].
,http://www.ohe.state.mn.us/sPagesOHE/SERDB5.cfm..
10. State of Minnesota, Health Licensing Boards. Biennial
reports July 1, 2004–June 30, 2006: table I: licensing and
registration summary [Internet]. The State; 2006 [rev 30 Jun
2006; cited 27 Apr 2009]. ,http://www.asu.state.mn.us/
LinkClick.aspx?link55_Table_I.pdf&mid52868..
11. The Legislative Commission on Health Care Access.
Final report: recommendations submitted to the Minnesota
State Legislature [Internet]. The Commission; 2008 [rev Feb
2008; cited 27 Apr 2009]. ,http://www.commissions.leg
.state.mn.us/lchca/HCAC%20Report%20final%202-08.pdf..
12. Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota e-Health
Initiative Advisory Committee. A prescription for meeting
Minnesota’s 2015 interoperable electronic health record
mandate. a statewide implementation plan [Internet]. The
Department; 2008 [rev 2008; cited 27 Apr 2009]. ,http://
www.health.state.mn.us/e-health/ehrplan.html..
13. Eldredge JD. Evidence-based librarianship: an over-
view. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 2000 Oct;88(4):289–302.
14. Booth A. Formulating answerable questions. In:
Andrew B, Anne B, eds. Evidence based practice for
information professionals: a handbook. London, UK: Facet
Publishing; 2004. p. 61–70.
15. Aspinall EE. My health Minnesota: electronic health
library: environmental scan [Internet]. 2008 [rev 3 Feb 2008;
cited 27 Apr 2009]. ,http://purl.umn.edu/47180..
16. Aspinall EE. My health Minnesota: electronic health
library: best practices survey [Internet]. 2008 [rev 21 Apr
2008; cited 27 Apr 2009]. ,http://purl.umn.edu/47179..
17. Dillman DA. Mail and telephone surveys: the total
design method. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1978.
18. Aspinall EE. My health Minnesota: electronic health
library: information needs assessment [Internet]. 2008 [rev 30
Apr 2008; cited 27 Apr 2009].,http://purl.umn.edu/47187..
19. Aspinall EE. My health Minnesota: electronic health
library: request for information [Internet]. 2008 [rev 16 Jun
2008; cited 27 Apr 2009]. ,http://purl.umn.edu/47188..
AUTHORS’ AFFILIATIONS
Erinn E. Aspinall, MSI, AHIP (corresponding au-
thor), aspin005@umn.edu, Special Projects Manager;
Katherine Chew, MLS, chewx002@umn.edu, Assis-
tant Librarian and Associate Director for Research,
Collections and Access Services; Linda Watson, MLS,
AHIP, FMLA, lwatson@umn.edu, Director; Health
Sciences Libraries, University of Minnesota Twin
Cities, 450B Diehl Hall/505 Essex Street South-
east, Minneapolis, MN 55455; Mary Parker, MA,
m-park1@umn.edu, Associate Director, Cooperative
Purchasing and Electronic Resources Services, Refer-
ence Services, Continuing Education, Minitex, Uni-
versity of Minnesota, 15 Andersen Library, 222 21st
Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439
Submitted March 2009; accepted May 2009
Aspinall et al.
252 J Med Libr Assoc 97(4) October 2009