Engaging users in a journals

review projectAnne Murphy BA DLIS MSc

Head Librarian Tallaght Hospital

eLibrary Management Workshop, HSLG, 10th March 2012

Tallaght Hospital, Dublin

Provide tertiary service to 400,000 people in 3 counties

National referral centre for some clinical specialities

Tallaght Hospital Library

Library website:Evidence & reference databases 300 journals in 200912,000 books

201125%

7% Hospital average

TOTAL73

titles cancelled in 2011

2012

15%

TOTAL31

titles cancelled in 2012

Number of journal subscriptions

300 286

213182

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2009 2010 2011 2012

Baseline of 300 journals in 2009

14

73

31

182

Retained

Cancelled in 2010

Cancelled in 2011

Cancelled in 2012

Total of 118 cancelled titles in 3 years

Not so fast...

31%

TOTAL31 + 83

Journals cut in 2012

Number of journals 2012

300 286

213182

99

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2009 2010 2011 2012 2012

Baseline of 300 Journals in 2009

14

73

31

8399

Retained

Cancelled in 2010

Cancelled in 2011

15% cut in 2012

31% cut in 2012

Total of 201 cancelled titles in 3 years

So. How come our users are still speaking to us?

Literature Search• Budget reductions are a primary driver for

libraries in undertaking a journals review. • Cancellations can damage the relationship

between users and their library if communication is poorly or incompletely executed.

• Libraries are keen to include users in the reviews to safeguard good working relationships with users and ensure the relevance of collections

The Journal Review Project

Meet the budget target Protect good relationship with staff Retain the most relevant, valued and used

journals

Communication Strategy

• Open a dialogue with our users• Use the Project to market the Library• Target group: doctors, senior clinical staff

and managers, and the Management Team

• Key message: You have a great Library• Channels: Paper, email, website, face to

face

Informed Decisions

Build datasets of metrics and evaluations

Identify the journals

Core1%

Package8%

Secure funding9%

For review82%

286 journals in total

236 for review

Conduct the user evaluations

Rating scale:1. Essential2. Cancel only if necessary3. May be cancelled4. Cancel

• Identify the survey group• Survey method: paper or online• Decide what titles asking to evaluate

User evaluation survey form

Columns:Journal titleRating scaleDepartmentFormat of journalSubscription status

A completed survey form

Respondents in 2011

36% response rate

Medical47%

Nursing17%

Allied Health29%

Other professionals2%

Management5%

Response rates:100% Rheumatology12% Surgery

User evaluations 2012

Leaner and cleaner

Increased the number surveyed to 550 and decreased the number of customised forms to 31

Respondents in 2012

Medical41%

Nursing19%

Allied Health29%

Management7%

Other Professionals4%

34% response rate

Compile the user evaluations

Columns:JournalDecisionDepartment4 sets of columns, 1 per rating: number & percentageCheck columnTotal population of respondents

Compile the journal metrics

Cost

Usage

Cost per use

The decision-making process

in

Decision-making criteria

• Principles– departments would have equitable coverage– The most used and most valued would be

retained• 2011 - 1 title per dept to cut• 2012

– 15%: 2 journals per department to keep– 31%: 4 core titles and aimed to retain 1 journal

per department

Round 1 – Identify definite keepers

30 titles

Round 2: two thresholds

44 journals tagged for probable cancellation

9 journals identified for purchase

Cost > €2,000

OR

< 1O uses

Round 3

Departmental / Speciality titles

55 journals identified for cancellation

Round 4

Departmental / Speciality titles

18 journals identified

for cancellation

Communicate the results

Key Message: Use the journals

Feedback in 2011

“This is very interesting...”

Post-operative Review 2011

• The decision-making process proved successful

• Successfully managed staff expectations• Librarians’ knowledge is crucial

Beginning to bite...

nmnmmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnnmnmnmnm

Consider all these titles as core reading

Two specialist journals is a minimumTwo [...] journals for a teaching hospital is a

disgrace

Midpoint of 2012 Project

Report back to hospital staff in June 2012

Meet with stakeholders Leverage staff advocacy for

their information needs to be met

Survey staff about their use of the published literature, discovery methods and their experience of the research publishing process

Stakeholder meetings

• May– Pharmacy, – Health & Social Care Professions– Laboratory

• June– Clinical Specialities– Nursing– Other

Why do they need the library?

• Clinical practice• For the care of a specific patient to answer a

clinical query about their treatment• Guiding practice and keeping up to date• Provide teaching and internship to MSc &

PhD students/trainees• CPD points for maintaining registration

Communication: staying out front

• Be available, start discussions, support your decisions with evidence, and listen and record what your users are telling you, and reflect it back to them

• Raised the Library’s profile and credibility with clinicians: they value research and find prestige in being published, and presenting at conference

• No drama, just calm building of evidence and persistence in making the case

Our users are talking with us because we

actively engaged with them and continue to

do so, and we are visible and accessible.

The alternative is closure.

Hospital photographs by kind permission of Tommy Walsh, Clinical Photographer, Tallaght Hospital

Further readingCarey R, Elfstrand S, Hijleh R, An evidence-based approach for gaining faculty acceptance in a serials

cancellation project, Collection Management, 2006, 30(2), 59-72.Gallagher J, Bauer K, Dollar D M, Evidence-based librarianship: utilizing data from all available sources

to make judicious print cancellation decisions, Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 2005; 29, 169-179.

Sinha R, Tucker C, Scherlen A, Finding the delicate balance: serials assessment at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Serials Review, 2005, 31(2),120-124

Haley P, Analysis of print and electronic serials’ use statistics facilitates print cancellation decisions, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 2006, 1, 57-59.

Day A, A look at librarianship through the lens of an academic library serials review, In the library with the lead pipe [serial on the internet]. 2009, p.3 (accessed 18 October 2010). (http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2009/a-look-at-librarianship-through-the-lens-of-an-academic-library-serials-review/ )

Ward R K, Christensen J O, Spackman E, A systematic approach for evaluating and upgrading academic science journal collections, Serials Review, 2005, 32(1), 4-16.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Murphy, A, An evidence-based approach to engaging healthcare users in a journal review project,

Insights,2012, 25(1), 44–50, doi: 10.1629/2048-7754.25.1.44Murphy, A, An evidence-based approach to engaging healthcare users in a journal review project.

Presentation at 35th UKSG Conference, Glasgow, 26th-28th March2012. http://river-valley.tv/an-evidence-based-approach-to-engaging-healthcare-users-in-a-journals-review-project/