Transcript Slide 1

Review of the Clinical Librarian
Service
Jane Surtees
[email protected]
Clinical Librarian
Royal Derby Hospital
Derby Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Methodology
 Questionnaire and accompanying letter
 Sent to all staff on wards and departments that have named clinical
librarian
 496 sent in total
 110 returned – started data analysis at 91
 27 agreed to follow up interview
 6 month + period
Results
Following discussion focusing on:
 Staff profile
 Information needs profile
 Resources used
 Impact of information gained
 Satisfaction
Job
Other
Student
Other admin
GP practice staff
Managers
Support Staff
Ambulance Staff
Scientific
Community Nursing
Acute Nursing
Other Medical Staff
GP
Consultant
Amount
Staff Profile
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Information Needs Profile
CONSULTANTS
 Direct patient care
 Personal research
 Clinical governance/guideline development & teaching
NURSES
 Direct patient care
 Teaching
 CPD related
SCIENTIFIC, THERAPEUTIC & TECHNICAL
 Direct patient care
 CPD related
 Audit & Service development
Information Needs Profile
- Type of Information
All three job groups sought this information with the
most frequency:
 Guidelines on management of illness/condition
 Most recent information on a subject
 Specific drug/therapy related
Resources Used
CONSULTANTS
 Internet
 Personal journal/book collection
 Databases such as Medline
NURSES
 Internet
 Reference textbooks/manuals
 Library staff
SCIENTIFIC, THERAPEUTIC & TECHNICAL
 Library staff
 Internet and Reference textbooks/manuals
Impact of information
gained
All three groups cited variations on these categories
with most frequency as being the immediate
impact of information gained:
 Relevant
 Accurate
 Current
 Provided new knowledge
 Will share information with colleagues
Interviews







Arbitrary classification used
Reinforced findings from questionnaires
Patient care related
Most respondents search at work
Most popular resources internet and clinical librarian
Information needs deemed to be partial/incomplete
Confirmed that the information would aid both immediate
and future decision making
 Search halted once clinical librarian contacted
 Information potentially leading to improvement in QOL for
patient and/or family
 Clinical librarian saves TIME
Literature Searching Service
2009-2010: a review
Literature Searching Service 09-10:
A Review
 December 2008 - Review document submitted on
statistics recorded by LKS
 Kept for many stakeholders including departmental,
directorate, regional and national organisations
 These statistics are recorded to support:
– EBP; Feedback; Keeping track of number of requests;
Housekeeping; Service Development; Improvement;
Workforce Planning; Education; Training needs;
Financial; Budgeting; HR; Monitoring activity.
Literature Searching Service 09-10:
A Review
 Focus group created
 Development of toolkit and set of guidelines
 Captured LKS statistics on:
–
–
–
–
Literature Searching Activity
Current Awareness Activity
Operations Activity
Training Activity
Literature Searching Service 09-10:
A Review
 Excel spreadsheet created to capture and record literature
search statistics
 Contents taken from literature search form
 Added features:
–
–
–
–
–
Look up codes
Predetermined drop-down menus
“on-time” feature
Individual codes for each literature search
Pivot tables – “who”, “where”, “what purpose”
Literature Searches 2009
N = 403
Breakdown by job role
Literature Searches 2009
Highest number of requests for general patient care
Most requests in Sep/Oct
Literature Searches 2010
N = 402
Literature Searches 2010
Majority service development followed by patient care
Online Feedback Form
 Received 82 responses in total (20.34% of all literature searches
completed).
 Alerted users of the literature searching service to respond to the
survey via two email drops carried out at 6 month intervals
 This proved productive and gave a response rate which is sufficient to
draw some tentative conclusions.
 The survey contained 15 questions - the first five questions pertained
to the users name, directorate, department, contact details and search
topic.
How relevant were the results to
your search request?
Have You Read The Summary Sheet
Provided?
If You Did Read The Summary, Was
It….
What Was The Immediate Impact Of The
Information Provided On Your
Knowledge?
Did The Information Impact On Any
Of The Following Areas?
How Did You Hear About The
Literature Search Service?
How Would You Rate This Service?
Conclusions





Perceived favourably by users
Integral part of clinical teams
Contribution to direct patient care
Demand currently exceeds supply
Current model of clinical librarianship is one that
is endorsed in literature
 Time saving
 Unique position to facilitate evidence based
practice
Conclusions Cont’d
 Literature search service valued by clinical &
managerial staff
 Impact on patient care confirmed by clinical users
 Encouraging users to seek out best evidence
 Support managerial decision making as well as
clinical need
 Key link in clinical & EBP chain
 With potential changes on horizon, need to think
innovatively how service can safeguard itself
Thank you for listening.
Questions?