Turning Missteps into Stepping Stones: Personal and Professional Growth as an Early Career Academic Librarian

This panel discussion will focus on the challenges and failures we have experienced as new and semi-new academic librarians. The all too familiar trend in libraries has been to do more with less: requests for library services have increased yet our budgets, time, and supplies have all decreased. While institutions have devised creative ways to adapt to new difficulties, including adopting new staffing models, the situation remains the same: we have been hired to do one job but inevitably end up doing much more. How did we as new librarians deal with systemic issues? How has it impacted our professional development (or lack thereof)? What did we learn or feel we failed at while coming into our own in this field? Our discussion will focus on shifts in working patterns, professional development (and the privilege that comes with being able to participate), the impact of institutional culture on “library work,” and proposals for success and change from the failures we have experienced. We also acknowledge that this is a panel of predominantly white, female-identified persons, and so our conversations are deeply rooted in systems of privilege. We are not speaking to the experiences of every librarian (nor should we aim to try), and we will also signal-boost counterspaces existing within our profession. This panel discussion will not be a venting session, but rather it is our hope to refocus the conversation to our experiences in the field and some possible solutions. Finally, we will consider how we have maintained professional direction and focus while allowing our career experiences to shape and inform us

Beyond the Resilience Narrative: A Case Study in Integrating Art Therapy as Self-Care at the University of Michigan Library

The practice of engaging in self-care to ensure your mental and physical wellness has by its very nature, placed the onus on the individual, without addressing the underlying structures and practices that can foster this need. Recognizing that asking individuals to engage in self-care without actively providing avenues that can fulfill this need, Naomi Binnie, Sheila Garcia, and Breanna Hamm came together to create the Art Alliance Interest Group. The Art Alliance is a group that provides open workshops and group sessions with certified therapists that lead employees from the University of Michigan (U-M) library in creating art as a form of self-care.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/150684/1/BeyondResilienceNarrative_Poster.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/150684/2/BeyondResilienceNarrative_Zine.pdf-1Description of BeyondResilienceNarrative_Poster.pdf : Main articleDescription of BeyondResilienceNarrative_Zine.pdf : "Additional Learning Object - Zine

Cultivating Critical Mass: Building an Omnidirectional Mentoring Community

This chapter focuses on the application to the authors' lived experiences of a model originating in the field of education that has to date been minimally referenced: omnidirectional mentoring. It briefly introduces the concepts of omnidirectional mentoring and critical mass, as well as presenting the author's personal narratives and discussions of how they have built critical mass, served as mentors, and been mentored by omnidirectional mentoring communities in different aspects of their careers and personal lives. It ends with recommendations for individuals and institutions interested in exploring and encouraging omnidirectional mentorship in their own contexts.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/170912/1/CH21_Cultivating_Critical_Mass.pdfDescription of CH21_Cultivating_Critical_Mass.pdf : Chapter textSEL

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Using Synchronous Posting to Locate Student Pain Points

Presentation. Critical Librarianship & Pedagogy Symposium, November 15-16, 2018, The University of Arizona.The nature of undergraduate library instruction sessions means we often do not see the same students more than once. We rarely begin the class knowing students’ names, their majors, their confidence levels or how they’re feeling that day. I will discuss beginning my instruction sessions with a student activity featuring synchronous, anonymous posting in an effort to create a safe space and to empower students by centering their voices, particularly the voices of students from marginalized communities who may not feel safe in the typical classroom environment. I will discuss how I assess student needs, pain points, and confidence levels in the beginning of class rather than at the end.Proceedings from the Critical Librarianship & Pedagogy Symposium are made available by the symposium creators and the University of Arizona Libraries. Contact the CLAPS committee at https://claps2018.wordpress.com/contact/if you have questions about items in this collection

Why Do Faculty Choose Asynchronous Library Instruction?

Librarians obtained data detailing course websites that imported one or more of the library modules from Canvas Commons during the 2021-2022 academic year. A questionnaire was designed and sent to faculty for these courses: 90 Fall 2021 courses taught by 55 individual faculty, and 81 Winter 2022 courses taught by 52 faculty. We removed 11 faculty from the Winter list who were contacted about Fall courses, which resulted in 41 unique faculty to whom we sent the Winter survey. 17 surveys were completed for an 18% response rate. Interviews were then conducted with 6 faculty who volunteered to talk in depth about their experiences. Understanding why and how faculty integrate asynchronous library instruction into university courses can significantly help libraries with strategic planning. Insight from this assessment helped factor future space-planning for onsite instruction; improved module design to meet the needs of faculty whether the modules are required or optional; developed differentiation of modules to reflect discipline or level of course; and how to meaningfully assess DLOs as both a communication tool and a learning object in the future.The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated creation and use of asynchronous digital learning objects (DLOs) in academic libraries. Within Canvas modules, DLOs provided library instruction on topics such as Academic Integrity, Searching Databases, Evaluating Sources, and Reading Scholarly Articles. Despite a return to in-person engagement on our campus, a strong use of asynchronous library DLOs continued. Librarians developed a lightweight, sustainable method of assessment to understand this trend, using DLO metadata, surveys, and semi-structured interviews. The assessment allowed greater understanding of how faculty integrated library-created Canvas modules into their courses, how faculty characterized the broader learning objectives of the modules in context with their discipline, and what motivated faculty to choose this asynchronous method of library instruction. Poster presented at ARL Library Assessment Conference.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/192458/1/161-Reiman-Sendi-Why-Do-Faculty-Choose.pdf-1Description of 161-Reiman-Sendi-Why-Do-Faculty-Choose.pdf : Poster (.PDF)SEL