# Presentation: 767227

## DOCLINE Update

- Medical Library Association 2005
- San Antonio, Texas
- Maria Elizabeth Collins
- National Library of Medicine, NIH/HHS

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

## Agenda

- Today’s DOCLINE
- Recent enhancements
- Changes currently in progress
- Upcoming development plans

**Notes:**
This morning I’d like to touch only briefly on the events of the past year so that I can focus primarily on what is coming up in this month and for the rest of the year.

## DOCLINE Today

- 3,260 libraries participating
- Nearly 1.4 million serial holding records
- 2.7 million ILL Requests in FY04
- Fill Rate is 91.84%
- Average number of routes is 1.23
- Marked shift to electronic delivery
- Licensing issues and ejournals
- epub ahead of print articles
- Costs ... budgets ... $$$

**Notes:**
Before I get into the details, I want step back to the big picture for those of you who might not use DOCLINE on an everyday basis.  Currently there are over 3,200 libraries participating in DOCLINE in 40 countries, primarily in the US and Canada.  There are nearly 1.4 million serial holdings records in DOCLINE, one of the keys to its success.  Since we know who owns what, we can route requests appropriately.  Last fiscal year, we routed more than 2.7 million ILL requests with a fill rate of 91.84% - a figure which we are proud of within the Network and at NLM.  The number of libraries a request must route to before it is completed is only 1.23 times.  What we’ve all seen over the past few years is a marked shift to delivering request documents electronically which has great benefits, but also brings some challenges and issues which the DOCLINE team will be working on in the coming year.  Everyone is dealing with licensing issues these days and DOCLINE is watching what is happening with licensing, especially with ejournals because it impacts how libraries can deliver interlibrary loan.  Epub ahead of print articles in PubMed are beneficial to the medical community, but are also posing some challenges for staff doing interlibrary loan.  There are a lot of requests for items which libraries are not initially able to fill.  These are some of the challenges which we all face and which the DOCLINE team hopes to assist users with in the coming year.  And lastly, there are ever increasing costs and decreasing budgets which libraries have to deal with.

## Recent Key Enhancements

- Lend - Ability to indicate delivery method in batch lend
- Truncated journal title search
- LD – prompt users for email address
- Alert users when citation is ‘ahead of print’

**Notes:**
Again, I just want to touch briefly on past enhancements.  I wanted to mention the ability to change the delivery method in batch lend because we do use these numbers at NLM to help determine development efforts.  So it is important for people to take that extra second to change the delivery method.  It lets borrowers have accurate information and know how and when to expect the document, and provides NLM accurate numbers to determine trends and for us to understand what is happening with the software, and with ILL.  

I wanted to highlight again the truncated journal title search.  We know that users really like it and had been asking for it for so long.

In November 2004, we started asking Loansome Doc users for their email address in preparation for the upcoming release of Loansome Doc 2.5 at the end of the month.  The email address will be the user’s way into the system.  We’ve given them 6 months to add email addresses so if they don’t have an email address in the system by the time we convert, they will need to re-register or ask their library to add their email address to the record.

We also added an alert to users when the citation is epub ahead of print.

## Slide 5

**Notes:**
This is what the epub alert looks like now.  If there is a FREE link, we display that.  If there is a publisher link, we display that. 

## DOCLINE Fill Rates

**Notes:**
I wanted to highlight the epub ahead of print alert because the fill rates are significantly lower for these items.  Epub requests only have a 71.45% fill rate.  So borrowers should  take an extra second to decide whether to order the item, do you want to use the Free or Producer site links, or try an alternate source.  

If you are prefixing requests, please also 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.

## DOCLINE 2.5

- Loansome Doc redesign
- Improved interface
- Decrease learning curve
- Reduce customer service calls
- Add patron and library requested enhancements
- Serial Holdings in MARC 21

**Notes:**
On to the future – in the next couple of weeks we will be releasing DOCLINE 2.5.  The full release notes are linked from the DOCLINE system page.  I want to walk through a couple of the changes.  The primary focus of this release is a redesign of Loansome Doc, the oldest part of the software and the most in need of a redesign.  The goals of the redesign are an improved interface, to decrease the learning curve for the new and infrequent user, to reduce customer service calls, and to add requested enhancements.  Also included in DOCLINE 2.5, is the ability for libraries to request their serial holdings for download in the MARC 21 format.  Primarily this will be used by libraries migrating from one system to another where holdings information cannot be transferred otherwise, or adding holdings to their integrated library system for the first time.

## Loansome Doc Enhancements

- Allow libraries to edit their LD patron records
- Display library specific information to user during registration
- Email registration confirmation to user
- Login ID will be user’s email address
- Password reset mechanism
- Warn user requesting duplicate articles
- Alert user to library’s holdings during order

**Notes:**
These are the major enhancements we are adding with this release.  Rather than read through the list, I’d like to show you the new features.

## Out With The Old

**Notes:**
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Loansome Doc, this is what the current interface looks like and ...

## Loansome Doc Login

**Notes:**
This is what the interface will look like in a couple of weeks.  The graphical changes in the interface are significant.  A couple of the features I want to point out on the login screen are the move to the email address as the user’s way to enter the system.  More than 50% of our customer service calls are from users forgetting their user ID or password.  We are also adding a password reset feature.  Users click on the link to have their password reset and emailed to them.  Libraries will no longer have access to the user’s password.  Libraries can reset the user’s password and it will be emailed to them, or patrons can reset it themselves.

The other thing that we wanted to bring more visibility to on the Login page was the Registration process.  We realized that many users found Loansome Doc by accident after clicking on the Send to Order in PubMed.  We wanted to add more information about what Loansome Doc is and drive them to the registration process.  We also added more clues as to what users can do in Loansome Doc.  We learned in usability testing that most users were completely unaware of the status and update account functions.

## Slide 11

**Notes:**
One of the things that we added in this version is the tabbed format to again drive home the availability of the other features of the system.  We also added a warning when the user is ordering a potential duplicate within the last 40 days – the length of time we keep completed transactions available to users and libraries.  We hear time and time again that libraries get many duplicate requests from their doctors, either they’ve forgotten that they’ve ordered an item or they are giving citations to assistants to order and multiple people end up ordering the same citation.  So again, we will warn users that they are ordering a duplicate, tell them when it was ordered and its current status.

The other thing that was requested is that we tell users whether the library owns the material the patron is requesting.  Through the usability testing, we went through several iterations of this.  Initially, we were displaying more information about the holdings but the users were distracted and sometimes frustrated by this – feeling they were working too hard to order something.  So we ended up with a simple Yes or No.  This seemed to be more helpful to the usability testers.  The system will be able to give them this information, but it will be up to libraries to educate their users what to do with the information.  What we heard from libraries and the participants confirmed it, is that libraries have different policies.  Some libraries want users to come in the library and photocopy items that they own.  Some libraries will not do interlibrary loan for unaffiliated users, etc.   So, again there will be some education of your policies needed.  If the answer is No, the user can click on the help icon to view an explanation that your library does not report owning the material and that library policy and procedures will determine whether the library will place an interlibrary loan request.

Lastly, we have the free links highlighted here.  These of course exist now.  Our Loansome Doc show that more than 50% of the users continue past the Free links and place the order.  We found in testing that there was a visibility issue – currently the link is beneath the citation, and users were missing it among the other data.  So we separated it from the citation data to give it more visibility.  What we also heard from our testers is that they saw the link, but they kept going for a variety of reasons.  Some didn’t have a good connection at home and didn’t want to deal with having to view and download it online – they just wanted their library to email it at the office.  Some didn’t like the print format that they could get from online, and some people just didn’t want to bother.  They knew the library would get it to them quickly so they moved on.  The other thing you’ll notice here is that the order checkbox is checked by default.  There was quite a bit of discussion at NLM about this, but we found in usability testing is that users were adamant that the software not make this decision for them.

## Slide 12

**Notes:**
Another page I want to highlight is the Order Status page.  This tells people what the current status of their order is.  Again, this functionality is largely unknown to the Loansome Doc user population.  We tried to highlight the status of the item using graphics, as we found that even those users who found the page in the current version had difficulty interpreting the status.   

The other thing we added was a link so that users could contact their library.  In several places in the software, including this contact link, we want to drive home that their library is providing the service and Loansome Doc is the mechanism for ordering.  This link will take the user to a page with contact information for your library based upon your institution record, and give them the opportunity to email you.  The email form is pre-filled with their name, phone number, and the request number for the citation they chose.

## Slide 13

**Notes:**
Lastly, here is the My Account Library page where patrons can update their account information and view information about their ordering library – again bringing visibility to the library providing the service.  Another new feature that we’ve added at the request of libraries is a configurable field where, during registration, they can prompt users to enter specific data.  Libraries can customize the label for this data element and provide instructions to the user for completing the field.  Please use this judiciously.  It allows libraries to gather useful information – university ID, employee number, department code, etc.  The one caveat is that libraries cannot ask for confidential or private information such as social security number or credit card number.  The database is not registered nor is designed to hold that type of information.

## Data purge

- Deletion of LD patrons inactive for 2 years
- Clean up of LD patron records
- Duplicate records
- Multiple records (one user -> many libraries)
- Admin records (multiple users -> one account)

**Notes:**
As part of the Loansome Doc release, we will be deleting users from the system who have been inactive – not ordered or logged in – in more than 2 years.  This was announced recently on the DOCLINE list.  We also have some cleanup to do on remaining records.  Since the email address will now be the way into the system, the email address has to be unique.  What we find in looking at the records is that people, forgetting their id or password, re-register and are in the system multiple times.  So we will have to do some merging of account records.  We’re also seeing that people have created multiple accounts in order to register with more than more library, unaware that they can use the one account to register with more than one library.  So we will merging those records.  We also see that there are some accounts where it appears one person or entity is ordering for multiple people.  Ideally, it should be one person – one account.  In these cases, please remember that it will now be the email address as the way into the system and if the password is reset, it would only be sent to that email address.

## Slide 15

**Notes:**
For the DOCLINE libraries, we are changing the Loansome Doc patron admin page so that you can now edit your own patron’s records.  You can still unauthorize those patrons you do not wish to serve.  During the registration process, we will asking the users to self-identify their patron category – affiliated, unaffiliated, or a member of the public.  So that when you get notified of a new user registering, you will have more information on which to decide what you want to do with this user.  You can change the patron’s category if you determine that it is different than what they selected.  The patron cannot change it back.  The identifier field is that new custom field that I mentioned.  You will see it as identifier.  The user will see it with whatever label that you give it.  The reset password feature is available here so that if a patron calls and says they can’t remember their password, you can send them a new one with a click of a button and it will be emailed to them.

## Slide 16

**Notes:**
On the Loansome Doc transfer page, we’ve added the patron type and whether or not the patron is authorized to give libraries more information to determine whether or not they want to do an interlibrary loan request for this user.

So those are the major features of the new Loansome Doc.  Once we return to NLM after the conference, we will continue testing and perform the data cleanup.  We will be announcing the final release date on the DOCLINE list.

## Plans for the future

## ISO ILL protocol status

- DOCLINE 2.3 released Nov 2004
- ILLiad’s DOCLINE interface is pending
- Other vendors invited to test with DOCLINE:
- Relais
- ILL Manager (RLG)
- VDX (Fretwell-Downing)
- Testing environment available to vendors since Dec 2004
- Informal testing – April 2005
- Formal testing with NLM scheduled for Summer 2005

**Notes:**
Also coming is the ISO ILL protocol.  In November of last year, we released DOCLINE 2.3 which was our first version to contain ISO compliant code.  ILLiad, which we had been testing with for about a year, was schedule to release a DOCLINE compatible version shortly after our release.  It was delayed, and is still pending.  In December 2004, we opened up our test environment to the remaining vendors – Relais, RLG, and Fretwell-Downing.  In April, to help with testing, NLM sent requests daily to each of the vendors.   We stopped at the beginning of May in order to focus on the Loansome Doc release, but the vendors are free to test amongst themselves and we strongly encouraged them to do so.  Once the Loansome Doc release is out, we will once again start testing with the vendors.  The testing will determine the path and the schedule.  

## 2005 Development Goals

- Improve Routing
- Add “Other” libraries to Refer On
- Expand options for items requested via electronic delivery methods
- Searching Serial Holdings by delivery method
- Routing by library group

**Notes:**
Our main focus for the rest of the calendar year of 2005 is going to be improving the 91.84% fill rate.  To do so, we are looking at adding “Other” to the “Refer On” algorithm.  We will also be working on allowing borrowers to indicate multiple delivery methods during the requesting process.  We will be adding searching by delivery method in Serial Holdings.  While we still people to use the routing algorithm and borrow as designed, we realize that there are times when you need to go outside of your routing table and look for additional lenders.  So we want to give you the tools that you’ve been requesting to search Serial Holdings for that information.  And last, but not least is routing by library group – something which has been repeatedly requested over time.  I’ll come back to that again at the end of my presentation.

## Adding “Other” to Refer On

- Library Level
- RML, Resource Library, PAL, Other
- Special libraries, federal libraries, international libraries: Canada, Mexico
- 742 libraries
- 3,200 titles held only by Other libraries
- Routing Logic: Up to 20 libraries from
- Resource Libraries, PALs, the “Four”, Other

**Notes:**
Other is a category of library.  We have the Regional Medical Library, Resource Libraries, Primary Access Libraries, and Other.  Primarily, Others consist of special libraries, federal libraries and the internationals.  Since only Canada and Mexico have holdings in the system, these are the only countries impacted by the change.  By adding Other to the Refer On after NLM routing algorithm, it adds 742 libraries to the pool of potential lenders, and adds 3,200 titles which are held only by libraries in the category of Other.  The way the logic will work is that the Other libraries will be added to the end of the hierarchy of libraries selected in the Refer On logic based upon delivery method and holdings.  We will continue to select up to 20 libraries, starting with the Resource libraries, than the PALs, then the four (AHA, ADA, NAL, CISTI), and then Other.  

So Other will widen the possible pool of lenders available in the routing algorithm.

## Network Delivery Methods

- 40 Day Snapshots

**Notes:**
This diagram illustrates that marked shift to electronic delivery of documents that I mentioned earlier.  These numbers only include delivery by Network libraries, excluding NLM.  For the Network, you can see that mail delivery has dropped from 64% to 36% in just two years.  And email delivery has jumped from 4.5% to 27%.  Ariel and fax delivery have been relatively flat in that same time period. 

## Electronic Delivery & Routing

- Delivery Formats
- b/w print
- color print
- b/w pdf
- color pdf
- b/w tiff
- color tiff
- Delivery Methods
- Ariel
- email
- fax
- mail
- web

- Level of Service
**normal** : process and ship in turn, in normal workflow
**rush** : same day service
**express** : process and ship immediately

**Notes:**
What we’re working this summer is to change the way you request the delivery method of the material.  Right now, you can specify one delivery method.  What we see people doing is that instead of selecting the delivery method they really want, they select Mail and then in the comments field they’ll say email or Ariel.  What we’re trying to do change the software so that people can use the software as it is designed and get better results.  

We will be changing how libraries report how they are able to provide documents.  There were will be a delivery format (b/w print, color pdf, etc.) and a delivery mechanism (email, fax).  We’re also adding in a level of service.  We’ve heard many times that people want a way to do rush requests – a formal way to do rush requests rather than the comments field that people are using.  The level of service is from the protocol so we’re taking the values from the standard.  Normal will be your average ILL request, rush is rush, and express is what NLM will be using for its clinical emergencies, or urgent patient care.

## Electronic Delivery & Routing

- Routing Profile
- Preferred Delivery Method (1)
- Alternate Delivery Methods (multiple)
- Preferred Format (1)
- Alternate Formats (multiple)

- Routing Algorithm
- preferred OR alternate delivery methods AND
- preferred OR alternate formats AND
- level of service AND
- holdings

**Notes:**
The way this would work is that on your routing preferences and during borrow, you would indicate a preferred delivery method and a preferred delivery format.  For example, you want it via email and you need a color PDF.  You could also specify one or more alternate delivery methods and alternate delivery formats.  So you want a color PDF, but you don’t care if it comes email, Ariel, or web delivery.  The way the algorithm will work is that it will do an OR on the delivery methods and formats so that it can get the broadest routing possible and greatest chance of success.  We will also be adding a check on level of service.  So if you are requesting a color PDF, the library also has to indicate that they provide rush service.  And of course, it will still check the holdings.

## Electronic Delivery & Routing

- “Special Handling” Messages
- New Home message for color, rush, and express
- Receipt
- Preferred format and delivery method in the "ship to" area
- Alternate format & method in body

**Notes:**
We will also be adding a new message on the Home page for these “special handling” items since they would need expedited handling and potentially go through a different workflow.  The receipt will be modified so that it will display the preferred and alternate delivery method and format in a standardized way so everyone knows where to find the information.

## Routing by Library Group

- What is the goal?
- How should it work?

**Notes:**
Routing by library group is an enhancement where we still need more information from our users in order for us to determine how best to make the change.  I know that users have been asking for this for years, so you’re wondering what more we need to hear from you.  We want to make sure that we’re meeting the needs that you have.  Different people mean very different things when they say they want routing by library group.  We want to make sure that we understand what people are really trying to achieve.

## Library Groups

- 156 library groups
- 954 libraries belong to 1 library group
- 801 libraries belong to 2 library groups
- 523 libraries belong to 3 library groups
- 269 libraries belong to 4 library groups
- 389 libraries belong to 5-8 library groups

**Notes:**
Here are some numbers so that people get a sense of the change.  There are currently 156 library groups – quite a few.  Just under a thousand libraries belong to just one library group, and about half of DOCLINE libraries belong to two library groups.  When there are two library groups, it is generally their local consortium and FreeShare.

## Library Groups

- 51 library groups have less than 15
- 47 library groups have 15-24 libraries
- 30 library groups have 25-49 libraries
- 15 library groups have 50-99 libraries
- 4 library groups have 100-250
- 2 library groups have more than 250
- BHSL = 410
- FreeShare = 1,229

**Notes:**
Also, if you look at the Library Groups themselves it appears, to NLM at least, that there are only a couple of library groups that fit outside the scope of the Routing Table which can hold up to 180 libraries.   So it seems like we’re talking about a few of the “super library groups” that would fall under this enhancement.

What we’re asking people to do at this MLA is, if you’re interested in this functionality, is to stop by the NLM booth and speak to one of the DOCLINE team members about what you’re looking to achieve with this enhancement.  Are you looking to edit your Routing Table less frequently, are you looking for more partners – what do you need the software to do for you.  We want to know what problems you are facing so that we can then best find the solution.

## DOCLINE Team Members Available...

- NLM Booth
- Monday, 10am – 12pm
- Tuesday, 2pm – 4pm

**Notes:**
This is our booth schedule.  I will be at the booth this morning at 10am.   Please stop by with any comments or questions.

Thank you.

## Questions & Answers

**Notes:**
Now I’d like to open the floor to questions for any of the speakers.