# Presentation: 671575

## DOCLINE Update

- Medical Library Association 2007
- Philadelphia, PA
- Maria Elizabeth Collins
- National Library of Medicine, NIH/HHS

**Notes:**
Good afternoon and thank you for joining us.  My name is Maria Collins and I am the DOCLINE and Loansome Doc Team Lead.  

We have a couple members of the DOCLINE Team with us as well.  I’ll ask them to stand so I can introduce them.  Deena Acton, our serials holdings expert, and Barbara Nicholson from the National Network Office.  Additionally, we have several more staff back at NLM continuing work on the next release of DOCLINE and responding to customer inquiries.

I’d also like those RML staff in the audience to stand so we can acknowledge their long hours of dedicated service to DOCLINE and all of you.

## Agenda

- DOCLINE today
- Recent enhancements
- Changes currently in progress
- Upcoming development plans

**Notes:**
This afternoon I’d like to highlight the achievements of the year and let you know what is coming up for the rest of the year.  There will be time at the end for questions.

## DOCLINE Today

- 3,166 libraries participating
- Over 1.47 million serial holdings records
- 2.31 million ILL Requests in FY06
- Fill Rate is 92.2%
- Average number of routes is 1.24

**Notes:**
I’m going to just briefly run through some of our standard statistics before moving on to system changes.

We have over 3,100 participating libraries reporting over 1.47 million serial holdings.   In fiscal year 2006, there were 2.31 million ILL requests – a decrease of 7% over last year.  The fill rate improved by 1% to 92.2% over last year which we attribute to the changes to routing introduced with DOCLINE 2.7 in March of last year.  The average number of routes continues to be low at 1.24 libraries.  

## DOCLINE Libraries

- (Federal and special libraries)

**Notes:**
DOCLINE libraries are broken down as follows: 63% hospital libraries, 19% are academic libraries, and 16% are “Other” libraries which consist mainly of federal libraries, including NLM, special libraries and associations.  We also have a small number of public libraries.

## ILL Requests  

**Notes:**
As you can see here, the number of items requested in DOCLINE increased steadily, then flattened out.  ILL demand peaked in 2002 at 3.03 million requests, and has decreased 5-6% per year for the last 5 years.  We attribute the decline to the good collection development practices and increased availability and visibility of full-text online.

## Network Delivery Methods

- 40 Day Snapshots

**Notes:**
This is one of my favorite diagrams that illustrates the remarkable shift to electronic delivery of documents over the past 4 years.  These numbers only include delivery by Network libraries, excluding NLM.  For the Network, you can see that mail delivery has dropped from 64% to just over 12%, with a 48% decrease since just last year.  Email delivery has jumped from 4.5% in 2003 to 56.15% this past month.  Ariel and fax delivery continue to be relatively flat

## Network Delivery Methods

- 40 Day Snapshot

**Notes:**
To illustrate the trend another way, this shows the breakdown of delivery methods over the last 40 days for requests filled by Network members...

## NLM Delivery Methods

- 40 Day Snapshot

**Notes:**
...and at NLM.  Mail has fallen to less than 1%

Just a reminder that NLM prefers to deliver via Email or Web.  

## DOCLINE Routing

- 84% of requests completed on first route
- 96.5% of requests completed on second route
- Only 3.5% of requests require more than 2 routes
**Average number of routes = 1.24**

**Notes:**
This is another statistic which has remained stable over the years.  96% of requests are completed by the second route, meaning it went to only two libraries.  The average number of routes to complete a request is only 1.24.

## A Day in the Life ...

- 8,566 requests were completed on 5/10/2007
- 25% were completed in less than 3 hours
- 36% were completed in less than 6 hours
- 70% were completed in less than 24 hours
- 92% were completed in less than 48 hours
- Average time to fill a normal request = 0.89 days
- Average time to fill a rush request = 0.31 days
- Average time to fill an urgent request = 0.15 days

**Notes:**
This year’s day in the life slide shows that more than 8,500 requests were completed Thursday, May 10th.  

70% were completed in less than 24 hours.  The average time to fill a request was only 0.89 days for a normal request, 0.31 days for a rush request which is roughly 7 hours, and 0.15 days for an urgent patient care request which is about 3.5 hours.  

For rush requests, 325 DOCLINE requests were completed.  The time from entering the request until it was marked completed was:

28% -     92 completed in less than 1 hour
56% -    181 less than 3 hours
67% -    219 less than 6 hours
93% -    302 less than 24 hours

Average time to fill (and complete) = .31 (7 hrs)

For urgent patient care requests, 75 DOCLINE requests were completed.  The time from entering the request until it was marked completed was:

47% -     35 completed in less than 1 hour
80% -     60 less than 3 hours

Average time to fill (and complete) = .15 (3.5 hrs)

## DOCLINE Fill Rates

**Notes:**
The fill rate for Epub ahead of print requests improved from 79.19% last year to 85.3% this year, while at the same time that the number of epub requests increased 20%.  We attribute the improvement in the fill rate to the changes in routing, and the LinkOut messages shown in Borrow.  However, we still urge borrowers to consider their options before requesting epub articles as the fill rate is lower than the average.

If you are prefixing requests, please note the fill rate for these requests is also noticeably lower than the average request.  Prefixing means you are forcing the request to a particular library, rather than using the algorithm in the software.  Remember that holdings are ignored during routing of Prefixed requests. Use prefixing with care. 

## DOCLINE 2.7 (March 2006)

- Fill rate improved 1% to 92.2%
- Routing by library group
- Total: 1,144
- FreeShare: 520
- Service Level
- Rush: 1,740 providers  (86.7% fill rate)
- Urgent patient care: 566 providers (89.5% fill rate)
- Multiple delivery methods
- Refer On

**Notes:**
DOCLINE 2.7 was such a major release that I wanted to touch again on some of its features and their impact on libraries.   The fill rate improved 1% over last year.  A small number, but a noticeable improvement when the rate is in the 90s.  We’re still looking for ways to improve this number further.   

The addition of Routing by Library Group was a significant change to the routing algorithm.  So far over 1,000 libraries have placed a library group in their routing table, with more than 500 FreeShare libraries doing so.  In checking the data, we see that 1226 libraries have not updated their routing table in more than a year.  The changes in DOCLINE 2.7 should encourage all libraries to update their routing table.

We also added the ability to define a level of service for a borrow request.  Rush requests are defined as same day service.  If you receipt a request at 8:01am and fill it by 4:59pm, then you’ve fulfilled the definition and thus the expectation of the borrower.  Borrowers and Lenders should have this definition in mind when working with Rush requests.  The Time-Triggered Action rules are more generous than the policy statement by rerouting a request not acted upon the following day.  For example, if you receipted a rush request today Monday, the request would reroute Wednesday at 5 minutes after midnight.  Lenders should be trying to fill (or reject) on the same day they receive the request to fulfill borrowers expectations.  We may shorten the time in Time-Triggered Actions in the future, but felt we needed the 'next day' rule in the beginning as libraries adjusted to the service and any additional software needs were identified.

Urgent Patient Care requests are defined as “process & ship immediately” which is vague and led to the many questions.  After discussions with the RMLs, we announced a 2 hour rule at the last MLA.  Lenders stating they provide Urgent Patient Care service must check DOCLINE at least every 2 hours and if a Urgent Patient Care request is awaiting receipt, must act on it immediately.  This 2 hour rule should cut down on the need for searching serial holdings, phone calls to lenders and prefixing.  We understand that there may be cases where a phone call is still needed, but want to reduce the need for standard requesting.  

On the question of routing based upon time and time zone, we will look at this in the future, but felt that it was too much to take on for the initial implementation.  For those utilizing Rush or Urgent Patient Care regularly, you may wish to consider establishing a “west coast cell” filled with libraries on the west coast providing Rush or Urgent service; and “east coast cell” so you can select the appropriate cell when routing a request early OR late in the day.  The cells could be de-selected by default, and then selected when needed.  We suggest putting them in low cell, and leaving your normal routing cells selected so the requests can route through your entire routing table if necessary.

The multiple delivery methods feature was a long time coming, but has been received well.  This is where libraries can indicate their delivery preferences.   Go to Institutions, then Update, then DOCLINE Options.  

Lastly, we changed Refer On so that it now includes “Other” libraries which are the Canadians and some special libraries.  Refer On will now evaluate ALL 3,100 DOCLINE participants when routing a request.  We encourage borrowers to utilize this feature.

## DOCLINE 2.8 (June 2006)

- Cosmetic improvements to LD Ordering
- Ability for libraries to remove Loansome Doc patrons from their patron list display
- Improvements to Loansome Doc registration
- Limit search results to libraries serving the public by default
- Greater visibility to “Contact Library”
- Ability to require an “authorization code”

**Notes:**
At the end of June last year, we released the following changes to Loansome Doc. We made minor improvements to the duplicate alert to make it more visible, and allowed libraries to remove unauthorized patrons from their search results.  Primarily, this release addressed library concerns about the registration process of LD patrons.  We added an optional “authorization code” that libraries could prompt patrons for during the registration process which helped ensure that the patron had actually contacted the library.

## Institution Update - LD

**Notes:**
This is the Loansome Doc page of the Institution record.  This is where a LD library can customize the registration process for their library.  If a library wishes to ensure that patrons contact them before registration, the “Require Authorizations” setting is the solution.  Please remember that this code has to be communicated to patrons who then have to type it during registration so be careful not to get too creative.  Most libraries use their LIBID.

517 of our 1,590 LD libraries are prompting users for an authorization code.

## LD Registration

**Notes:**
This is what the patron would see if the library chooses to require the new authorization code.  The value can be anything the library desires, and modified as often as needed.  The patron will not be able to proceed without entering the correct authorization code.

## DOCLINE 3.0 (October 2006)

- LinkOut information in Borrow
- Display library holdings in Borrow
- Display PMC author manuscripts in Borrow
- Ability to individually review retired requests
- Annual report of titles filled by institution
- EFTS file builder

**Notes:**
Last fall, NLM released DOCLNE 3.0 which added the display of a library’s LinkOut information during Borrow, as well as their serial holdings in DOCLINE.  These messages alert libraries to titles they own or subscribe to that might have been missed when checking their OPAC or could replace OPAC checking for some libraries.  We are also now displaying links to author manuscripts in PubMed Central during Borrow. 

In DOCLINE 3.0, we also added a new annual report which will list titles filled by an institution.  This is a new 1-8 report which is produced twice a year and should assist libraries in collection development review.  

The other major enhancement included with DOCLINE 3.0 was the EFTS File Builder...

## EFTS File Builder

**Notes:**
I want to highlight the new EFTS File Builder that allows EFTS members to create the transaction file that is uploaded to EFTS to bill EFTS borrowers.  DOCLINE displays all transactions from EFTS borrowers.  Libraries can exclude transactions by their library groups if they don’t charge them.  Lenders enter their charges and DOCLINE creates the file.  Libraries then upload it to EFTS.

NLM prefers to bill via EFTS since it saves us time and money in our invoicing.  We encourage all libraries to consider joining.  Your RML can provide information about EFTS or you can contact EFTS directly.  EFTS is hosting a session on Monday at 2pm.

## ISO ILL Protocol

- DOCLINE ended support Jan 2007
- Only 3 libraries converted to protocol
- Very labor intensive
- Difficult to scale
- Standard currently up for re-affirmation vote
- DOCLINE looking for other opportunities

**Notes:**
In January, NLM ended its support for the ISO ILL protocol.  After more than a year in service, just 3 libraries had adopted the protocol for exchanging requests.  Each customer required individual testing to implement and had unique issues to overcome.  Given the low usage, the high development and customer support costs, and the lack of support for patron initiated requests by the protocol, NLM decided to end support for the ISO ILL protocol.  

Recently, ISO put out call for a re-affirmation vote on the protocol.  NLM participated in a conference call among NISO members active in the protocol to discuss the U.S. vote.  Most agreed that the protocol was not the ideal technical or functional solution for interoperability among systems, and wanted a new standard developed.  The group was split as to whether affirming or withdrawing the protocol was the best course of action for achieving that goal.   

NLM voted to withdraw the protocol since we feel it is not technically sufficient and failed to meet our users needs by not accommodating Loansome Doc. We feel that only by withdrawing the existing protocol will vendors and libraries be motivated to start again.   We have heard that the US votes were mixed, but there is no word yet from ISO.

NLM believes in interoperability among systems.  We know that many of our DOCLINE libraries supplement DOCLINE functionality with local ILL systems and would like to more seamlessly pass data between them.  We’ll be talking to the vendors and working with the standards organizations to ensure the best functionality possible for DOCLINE libraries.

## DOCLINE 3.1 (April 2007)

- User account creation and maintenance (RMLs and NLM)
- NLM administrative functions
- Single lend – ability to view / print receipt
- Library Groups in Routing Table report
- Ability to set mail delivery = No

**Notes:**
Last month, we released DOCLINE 3.1.  This release was primarily for the RMLs and for NLM administrative functions, however we did include a few user enhancements.  We added the ability to view and print the receipt from Single Lend.  At user’s requests, we also added the ability to set mail delivery to No.  Previously, mail delivery had always been assumed.  Given the huge shift to electronic delivery, some libraries wanted to stop providing copies via mail.  

As of Thursday, just 29 libraries have set Mail to No, however, this gives me the opportunity to remind libraries of the borrow preferences in their institution record.  When considering this change, NLM was concerned by the number of libraries that indicate Mail as the preferred delivery option.  Borrowers are encouraged to indicate their actual preferred delivery method, and indicate their acceptable alternate delivery methods so DOCLINE can best route your requests.  Currently,

1,671 libraries have Mail as preferred delivery method
1,339 libraries have Mail as ONLY delivery method

And this leads me into my “housekeeping” slide ...

## Housekeeping

- Review institution record
- Address and contact info
- Services & Fees
- DOCLINE Options
- Borrowing preferences
- Routing Table & M/A/N Map
- Delivery Methods
- Loansome Doc Options
- Registration
- Delivery methods
- Review serial holdings

## Plans for the future

## DOCLINE 3.2 (Summer 2007)

- Technical release
- Preparation for Oracle 10g
- Security upgrades
- PubMed technical changes
- SSL for DOCLINE
- _[https://docline.gov](https://docline.gov/)_
- Automatic redirect from _[http://](http://docline.gov/)__[docline.gov](http://docline.gov/)_

**Notes:**
This summer we will be releasing DOCLINE 3.2 which is purely a technical release to address the issues shown here, and a few others.  The one change that users will see is the move to secure socket layer (SSL) which means that all DOCLINE data passed between NLM servers and local PCs will be encrypted – that’s any data that is shown on your screens – requests, institution and people info, etc.

## DOCLINE 3.3 (Fall 2007)

- Optional email notification when a request routes to your library
- Separate Yes/No settings for Normal, Rush, Urgent
- Email delivery address
- Borrow / Manual
- Alert users to other request options
- Remove NLM UI and call number fields
- Requests by library group membership report

**Notes:**
In the fall of this year, we will releasing DOCLINE 3.3.  We will be adding a new optional email notification system that will send the library an email when a request routes to them.  Libraries will be able to separately indicate whether they want email for normal, rush, and urgent patient care requests.  The email would be sent to your email delivery address listed in your institution record – DOCLINE Options.

We also plan to add an alert message to borrowers using the Manual method indicating better ways to request an item.  From analyzing the requests, we can see that many requests ordered via Borrow / Manual would be better off being sent via Borrow / UniqueKey or Borrow / LocatorPlus so the request can route on a library’s routing table.

We are also looking at ways to show requests by library group membership.  Users have been requesting this recently, but what exactly is needed isn’t always communicated.  On the next slide ...

## Proposed Report

**PAUMMM as Borrower**
- Lenders:        Requests	 Filled   Fill Rate
- ABCD              60	  50	83.3%
- FreeShare 	 80  	  75	93.75%
- All others	 50	  45	90.0%
- Totals:	190	 175	92.1%
**PAUMMM as Lender**
- Borrowers:      Requests     Filled    Fill Rate
- ABCD              50           45	90.0%
- FreeShare       100          90	90.0%
- All Others        200        175	87.5%
- Totals:            350        310	88.5%

**Notes:**
...is a draft of a planned report.  It is a summary report by library group for a library as both a lender and borrower.  It only lists library groups to which the library belongs.  One note here is that a library could belong to multiple library groups and would be counted twice.  Libraries should use the other quarterly reports for their borrow and lend counts, and this planned report for an overview of library group activity.

## DOCLINE 4.0 (Future...)

- Requests & Serial Holdings
- Efficiency
*Time is money and libraries do not have enough of either*
- Ease of use
- E-journals
- Embargos
- ePub ahead of print
- Licensing restrictions
- Diverging content
- Interoperability with 3rd party systems

**Notes:**
Beyond the upcoming releases of DOCLINE 3.2 and 3.3 that I’ve mentioned, we are discussing plans for the Requests and Serial Holdings modules.  We will be reviewing all of the screens and workflows to figure out how we can make things more efficient and easier to use.  We are reviewing all of the enhancement requests you have sent us in the past.  We will be talking with libraries in the metro Washington area to observe their processes and learn from them what issues and concerns the software could possibly address so we can continue to bring you the best possible product.  We will be analyzing the big issues of today – ejournals, licensing, epub ahead of print, and diverging content.

We want to hear from you at this conference – in this meeting, or after at the booth.  Or send us a Contact DOCLINE request upon your return.

## DOCLINE Best Practices

- Etiquette guidelines – user suggestions
- Software guidelines
- Accurate institution record
- Borrow
- Use software options
- Use correct request method (avoid Manual)
- Receipt in a timely manner
- Lend in a timely manner
- Update DOCLINE accurately (delivery methods!)
- Update DOCLINE after actual fill & same day

**Notes:**
I want to end the presentation by touching on some best practices.  Occasionally on DOCLINE-L, we’ll see postings from users asking their fellow DOCLINE users to follow one guideline or another, for example, putting the DOCLINE request number in the email subject line when sending an article.  As many of you probably saw, one of our RMLs asked users to contact her with these suggestions.  The RMLs are working through these and will be posting something on the nnlm site in the future.

In terms of DOCLINE system, I want to point out a few things:
I’ll again encourage users to review their institution record
In Borrow, use the system options
Use your actual preferred delivery method and alternate delivery methods 
Let the system route the request.  It works.  Really.
Use the correct request method.  Borrow / UniqueKey if you know an ID, Borrow / LocatorPlus to find a record when you don’t know the ID.  Avoid the Manual method.
Receipt in a timely manner
Lend in a timely manner.  Update DOCLINE only after you have filled (or not filled) the request BUT the same day to avoid accidental reroutes.  Please update to the correct delivery method to let the borrower know when and where to look for the request.  Accurate records always help NLM determine system trends so we know where to focus our development efforts.

## Learn More

- NLM Online Update
- Monday Sunrise Seminar 7:00am
- Grand Ballroom, Salons A and B
- PubMed, LinkOut, Indexing, MedlinePlus, etc.
- Analysis of DOCLINE ILL data from FY2005
- EFTS Users Group Meeting
- Monday, 2pm – 3pm
- Rooms 309 and 310

**Notes:**
I’d like to invite everyone to the NLM Online Update which is bright and early tomorrow morning at 7am.  Bring your favorite coffee and hear about NLM systems updates and a presentation of the data analysis we conducted on the fiscal year 2005 ILL data in DOCLINE.

I again encourage everyone to consider joining EFTS to save time and money with billing.  You can attend the EFTS users group tomorrow after at 2pm.

## Talk With Us

- NLM Booth
- Sunday, 4pm – 5pm
- Monday, 10am - 12pm
- DOCLINE Team Members at MLA
- Deena Acton
- Maria Collins
- Barbara Nicholson

**Notes:**
To talk to one of the DOCLINE team members, visit the NLM booth or you can find one of us after this presentation of after tomorrow’s sunrise seminar.  Deena Acton will be at the booth today from 4 to 5pm.  I will be at the booth tomorrow from 10am until noon.   Please stop by with any comments or questions.

Thank you.

## Questions & Answers

**Notes:**
I’d like to open the floor to questions.