The Standards for Hospital Libraries are not resource lists

In a recent conversation with colleagues about the content of "Standards for Hospital Libraries 2002," a question arose about why the standards were written as they are, rather than recommending resources that a library of a given size should have.

If we were to simply list resources, we would be encouraging the view that they are the only important thing in a library. We would be fostering the belief that having MDConsult, Up-to-Date, or whatever database available is all that is needed. We would be joining the voices that tell us that there is no need for a librarian, since it's all free on the net, and everyone is adept at finding all the information they need.

We have been trying for years to make it clear that a qualified librarian is the most valuable information resource an institution can have. The standards state that the librarian is integrated into hospital operations, and outlines the scope of service to be expected of a person in this position. We have also focused on a needs assessment as the basis of planning for library services. Does that not imply that every hospital, and every library, is unique, and that the judgement of a professional should be brought to bear on what resources and services are appropriate?

Please realize that we can raise or lower the perception of our profession by the way in which we describe our work--in our official documents, as well as in our day-to-day work.