Review of the Clinical Librarian Service

1
Review of the Clinical Librarian Service

• Jane Surtees
• Jane.surtees_at_derbyhospitals.nhs.uk
• Clinical Librarian
• Royal Derby Hospital
• Derby Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

2
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

3
Results

• Following discussion focusing on
• Staff profile
• Information needs profile
• Resources used
• Impact of information gained
• Satisfaction

4
Staff Profile
5
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

6
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

7
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

8
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

9
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

10
(No Transcript)
11
Literature Searching Service 2009-2010 a review
12
Literature Searching Service 09-10A 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.

13
Literature Searching Service 09-10A 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

14
Literature Searching Service 09-10A 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

15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
Literature Searches 2009
N 403 Breakdown by job role
19
Literature Searches 2009
Highest number of requests for general patient
care Most requests in Sep/Oct
20
Literature Searches 2010
N 402
21
Literature Searches 2010
Majority service development followed by patient
care
22
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.

23
How relevant were the results to your search
request?
24
Have You Read The Summary Sheet Provided?
25
If You Did Read The Summary, Was It.
26
What Was The Immediate Impact Of The Information
Provided On Your Knowledge?
27
Did The Information Impact On Any Of The
Following Areas?
28
How Did You Hear About The Literature Search
Service?
29
How Would You Rate This Service?
30
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

31
Conclusions Contd

• 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

32
(No Transcript)
33

• Thank you for listening.
• Questions?