review of the clinical librarian service jane surtees jane.surtees@derbyhospitals.nhs.uk clinical...

Review of the Clinical Librarian Review of the Clinical Librarian ServiceService

Jane SurteesJane.surtees@derbyhospitals.nhs.ukClinical LibrarianRoyal Derby HospitalDerby Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

MethodologyMethodology

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

ResultsResults

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

Staff ProfileStaff Profile

Information Needs ProfileInformation 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 ProfileInformation Needs Profile- Type of Information- 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 UsedResources 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 Impact of information gainedgained

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?

ConclusionsConclusions

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’dConclusions 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?