Sorry for the hokey-cokey, but we're going back to http://clinicallibrarian.blogspot.com!
Showing posts with label clinical librarian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label clinical librarian. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
International Clinical Librarian Conference 2011
The programme for the conference is now available on our website. It's going to be on the official conference site soon too, but we wanted to get it out as soon as it was finalised. If you're trying to use up money before the end of the financial year (if you're lucky enough to have any left!), then do consider registering to join us in Birmingham this June. The invoices are automatically generated, so there is no waiting around for the post either!
We're very excited about this year's conference, we think it has a truly international feel with presentations from Canada, Australia, the Netherlands and Norway. Plus there's the added attraction of a beautiful setting at the Botanical Gardens.
Registration details are here: http://conference.euhl.org.uk
We're very excited about this year's conference, we think it has a truly international feel with presentations from Canada, Australia, the Netherlands and Norway. Plus there's the added attraction of a beautiful setting at the Botanical Gardens.
Registration details are here: http://conference.euhl.org.uk
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Appraising apples and doing something to oranges
Andrew Booth's latest article in HILJ [subscription required] is, I assume, a refection on a forthcoming systematic review of Clinical Librarianship. In it, he looks at the problems of in evaluating a clinical librarian service in an objective, generalisable way. It's also a very entertaining article in Andrew's inimitable style. Definitely get hold of the full copy if you can.
The issues around evaluating clinical librarian services are many, but a particular one that stood out to me is the sample of clinicians and clinical teams.
The issues around evaluating clinical librarian services are many, but a particular one that stood out to me is the sample of clinicians and clinical teams.
"The team selected for participation in such a service is not selected at random and so does not represent clinicians in general."
This is so true, we are always advising people setting up new services to seek out "champions" to pilot a project and help to spread the word. These are often already library service users, and experts in evidence based medicine. This approach is partly to avoid wasted effort on the part of the Clinical Librarians, but perhaps those most in need of a service are the clinicians who don't know they want that service.
The different models of Clinical Librarians are discussed, and I identified with the introverted vs. extroverted librarians section. I think here at Leicester, we're all very much in the extrovert camp.
Andrew's final PICO is excellent.
Of course! It does make me wonder how we ever managed to prove our worth at all. At UHL, we often feel we ought to be evaluating the service we provide, but never quite get around to it. I'm now wondering whether the excuse of being simpy far too busy providing the service is the only reason for our reluctance.
I'll certainly be interested to read the full systematic review when it's published, though I will admit I've had a couple of sneak previews, both at the HLG conference and the writing for publication course I attended earlier this month (more on that soon).
The different models of Clinical Librarians are discussed, and I identified with the introverted vs. extroverted librarians section. I think here at Leicester, we're all very much in the extrovert camp.
Andrew's final PICO is excellent.
"In a self-selecting or deliberately skewed population of clinicians is a range of activities loosely grouped together under the label of 'clinical librarian' better than doing nothing when measured across a selection of favourable and non-objective outcome measures, including those are difficult both to articulate and quantify?"
Of course! It does make me wonder how we ever managed to prove our worth at all. At UHL, we often feel we ought to be evaluating the service we provide, but never quite get around to it. I'm now wondering whether the excuse of being simpy far too busy providing the service is the only reason for our reluctance.
I'll certainly be interested to read the full systematic review when it's published, though I will admit I've had a couple of sneak previews, both at the HLG conference and the writing for publication course I attended earlier this month (more on that soon).
Friday, November 12, 2010
Updates to the UHL CL website
I've been very slack lately in keeping the Clinical Librarian Bibliography up to date, and I hadn't (until this morning) added links to the presentations from the Study Day in October either. However, I have done it now, and everything should be there to view.
I do worry about the bibliography, I wonder how useful it is, and if I am managing to capture everything. Thankfully, many people are happy to blow their own trumpet & let me know what they've published! I am grateful for that. I do have a lot of alerts set up through HDAS and PubMed, but I know I miss things.
At UHL we use articles about clinical librarianship as inspiration for what we could achieve, and as evidence to pass to our managers to prove our value. Do others do this?
We leads me to wonder if we should publish more, and if so, what? The day job is busy enough keeping on top of the searches and the current awareness, as well as the admin tasks we all have. Do we also have a responsibility to be writing and publishing and practising what we preach on evidence based practice?
I do worry about the bibliography, I wonder how useful it is, and if I am managing to capture everything. Thankfully, many people are happy to blow their own trumpet & let me know what they've published! I am grateful for that. I do have a lot of alerts set up through HDAS and PubMed, but I know I miss things.
At UHL we use articles about clinical librarianship as inspiration for what we could achieve, and as evidence to pass to our managers to prove our value. Do others do this?
We leads me to wonder if we should publish more, and if so, what? The day job is busy enough keeping on top of the searches and the current awareness, as well as the admin tasks we all have. Do we also have a responsibility to be writing and publishing and practising what we preach on evidence based practice?
Monday, November 01, 2010
Literature search disclaimers
I know we all find disclaimers a bit tricky, so nice to know what the Canadian Health Librarian's discussion list came up with on this topic, from Sarah Vanstone in the Canadian Medical Association:
"I am sharing the information I gathered about literature search disclaimers. Here are some examples of disclaimers that were sent to me or that were found on the internet. I also include at the end, emails from librarians who do not currently use disclaimers.
regards, Sarah
Sarah Vanstone Manager, Information Services (Acting) Canadian Medical Association - L’Association Medicale Canadienne 1867 Alta Vista Dr., Ottawa, ON. K1G 5W8
613.731.8610 (2144) 800.663.7336 (2144) Fax: 613.731.2076
Examples of disclaimers and comments about disclaimers
Information is provided as a service by the Neil John Maclean Health Sciences Library. The information is gathered from standard medical sources and is not intended to provide comprehensive coverage of the subject. The information may not be applicable in any given clinical situation, nor is the selection of material intended to suggest a diagnosis or treatment modality. Results of any literature search are subject to the limitations of the database searched, consequently, some citations which are retrieved may not be directly relevant to the desired topic. The information is only valid as of the date and time conducted. From time to time inaccuracies may exist in a citation. The information is not intended to be a substitute for medical advice or care from a physician or other health care professional. The Neil John Maclean Health Sciences Library is not responsible for consequential or incidental damages arising out of reliance on the information it gathers, and its liability is limited to the cost of services provided.
------------------------ Please note that this literature search is limited to the contents of the databases and there is no guarantee as to completeness.
------------------------
Results of any literature search are subject to the limitations of the database searched. Consequently, some citations which are retrieved may not be directly relevant to the desired topic. Inaccuracies from time to time may exist with a citation and are beyond our control. While database searching does offer speed, online searches are not meant to represent a comprehensive treatment of a topic. The Prior Health Sciences Library is not responsible for consequential or incidental damages arising out of reliance on the information it gathers, and its liability is limited to the cost of services provided. ------------------------
The Briscoe Library staff makes every effort to provide accurate and complete database search results. However, we assume no liability for information retrieved, its interpretation, applications, or omissions. ----------------------
Disclaimer: The search is conducted using the resources available to the University of Queensland Library and within time limits. It is not intended to provide healthcare staff with either advice or recommendations on the management of individual patients. Nor does it provide medical advice to health consumers. The search results consist of bibliographic references only, not the full-text of original papers. These requests are stored in a database housed on protected UQ Library server. All requests will be kept confidential.
-----------------
Exclusion of Liability: The results retrieved by this literature search are for the information of the requestor. Queen’s University or its employees are not liable for any errors or omissions, negligent or otherwise, in the search process or in the content of the database(s). The search results may not represent all the information available on the search topic, and the requestor agrees not to rely exclusively on the information retrieved by this search.
----------------
Please carefully examine the results and search terms used for the search. HHN Library Services makes every effort to provide accurate and complete database search results; however, it assumes no liability for the information retrieved, its interpretation its application or for omissions. Your input and subject expertise are invaluable in devising the search strategy and selecting appropriate resources. If after viewing the search result you would like to expand or refine the search, please contact Library Service to further discuss your request. Thank you.
---------------
…..while I do not put a disclaimer in the lit searches I perform here, I have, in a previous job as Information Specialist, put the following disclaimer after listing the databases searched.
Date: ___ Researcher: ________________________ Due to the limitation in scope of the databases, it is not certain that all relevant information was detected. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information provided, the researcher cannot be held liable for any loss of business revenue as a result of the provision of the data provided.
---------------
I don’t use a disclaimer, because I usually do the search with the person sitting with me. So, we talk about the vagueries
of databases and choose the level of precision versus recall together. They get to see if the search is working or not and
have the opportunity to shape it to their needs. In the academic medical environment, we’re not usually dealing with people who are going to sue us because an article didn’t show up in the search – which is usually the purpose of the
disclaimer. I used to do a lot of patent searching, and for that I did have a disclaimer that I used occasionally – usually when I was dealing
with a member of the general public (read “backyard inventor”) who clearly did not understand that there are limits to searching, and even
though we’d had the discussion and s/he had sat with me through the search, was still asking questions like “Is this 100% certain that there is nothing like my idea out there?” My colleague at UBC, who also did patent searching for the public, had a disclaimer that he always threw on top of the search, just to
be on the safe side. But I think he did a lot more searching without the client present. Sandy Campbell John. W. Scott Health Sciences Library University of Alberta
--------------------- I don’t have a specific disclaimer per se, but am very clear about what I was able to search within the parameters I was given.
This is usually related to the amount of time I have to do the search vs. what they requested (I get a fair number of grey literature search requests, and when my hours were reduced to part-time, it’s not generally possible to be thorough within the lead times I’m given.
Paula Clark, MISt Health Services Research Librarian Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences "
"I am sharing the information I gathered about literature search disclaimers. Here are some examples of disclaimers that were sent to me or that were found on the internet. I also include at the end, emails from librarians who do not currently use disclaimers.
regards, Sarah
Sarah Vanstone Manager, Information Services (Acting) Canadian Medical Association - L’Association Medicale Canadienne 1867 Alta Vista Dr., Ottawa, ON. K1G 5W8
613.731.8610 (2144) 800.663.7336 (2144) Fax: 613.731.2076
Examples of disclaimers and comments about disclaimers
Information is provided as a service by the Neil John Maclean Health Sciences Library. The information is gathered from standard medical sources and is not intended to provide comprehensive coverage of the subject. The information may not be applicable in any given clinical situation, nor is the selection of material intended to suggest a diagnosis or treatment modality. Results of any literature search are subject to the limitations of the database searched, consequently, some citations which are retrieved may not be directly relevant to the desired topic. The information is only valid as of the date and time conducted. From time to time inaccuracies may exist in a citation. The information is not intended to be a substitute for medical advice or care from a physician or other health care professional. The Neil John Maclean Health Sciences Library is not responsible for consequential or incidental damages arising out of reliance on the information it gathers, and its liability is limited to the cost of services provided.
------------------------ Please note that this literature search is limited to the contents of the databases and there is no guarantee as to completeness.
------------------------
Results of any literature search are subject to the limitations of the database searched. Consequently, some citations which are retrieved may not be directly relevant to the desired topic. Inaccuracies from time to time may exist with a citation and are beyond our control. While database searching does offer speed, online searches are not meant to represent a comprehensive treatment of a topic. The Prior Health Sciences Library is not responsible for consequential or incidental damages arising out of reliance on the information it gathers, and its liability is limited to the cost of services provided. ------------------------
The Briscoe Library staff makes every effort to provide accurate and complete database search results. However, we assume no liability for information retrieved, its interpretation, applications, or omissions. ----------------------
Disclaimer: The search is conducted using the resources available to the University of Queensland Library and within time limits. It is not intended to provide healthcare staff with either advice or recommendations on the management of individual patients. Nor does it provide medical advice to health consumers. The search results consist of bibliographic references only, not the full-text of original papers. These requests are stored in a database housed on protected UQ Library server. All requests will be kept confidential.
-----------------
Exclusion of Liability: The results retrieved by this literature search are for the information of the requestor. Queen’s University or its employees are not liable for any errors or omissions, negligent or otherwise, in the search process or in the content of the database(s). The search results may not represent all the information available on the search topic, and the requestor agrees not to rely exclusively on the information retrieved by this search.
----------------
Please carefully examine the results and search terms used for the search. HHN Library Services makes every effort to provide accurate and complete database search results; however, it assumes no liability for the information retrieved, its interpretation its application or for omissions. Your input and subject expertise are invaluable in devising the search strategy and selecting appropriate resources. If after viewing the search result you would like to expand or refine the search, please contact Library Service to further discuss your request. Thank you.
---------------
…..while I do not put a disclaimer in the lit searches I perform here, I have, in a previous job as Information Specialist, put the following disclaimer after listing the databases searched.
Date: ___ Researcher: ________________________ Due to the limitation in scope of the databases, it is not certain that all relevant information was detected. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information provided, the researcher cannot be held liable for any loss of business revenue as a result of the provision of the data provided.
---------------
I don’t use a disclaimer, because I usually do the search with the person sitting with me. So, we talk about the vagueries
of databases and choose the level of precision versus recall together. They get to see if the search is working or not and
have the opportunity to shape it to their needs. In the academic medical environment, we’re not usually dealing with people who are going to sue us because an article didn’t show up in the search – which is usually the purpose of the
disclaimer. I used to do a lot of patent searching, and for that I did have a disclaimer that I used occasionally – usually when I was dealing
with a member of the general public (read “backyard inventor”) who clearly did not understand that there are limits to searching, and even
though we’d had the discussion and s/he had sat with me through the search, was still asking questions like “Is this 100% certain that there is nothing like my idea out there?” My colleague at UBC, who also did patent searching for the public, had a disclaimer that he always threw on top of the search, just to
be on the safe side. But I think he did a lot more searching without the client present. Sandy Campbell John. W. Scott Health Sciences Library University of Alberta
--------------------- I don’t have a specific disclaimer per se, but am very clear about what I was able to search within the parameters I was given.
This is usually related to the amount of time I have to do the search vs. what they requested (I get a fair number of grey literature search requests, and when my hours were reduced to part-time, it’s not generally possible to be thorough within the lead times I’m given.
Paula Clark, MISt Health Services Research Librarian Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences "
Friday, October 15, 2010
Clinical Librarian Study Day debrief
I wish I could tell you all about the business planning session run by Jacqui Cox and Louise Hull, but I was helping out in another session with Sarah Sutton, so I couldn't sit in on that one.
What I can tell you about is the marketing session. Sarah gave one of her trademark presentations bursting with ideas, and then threw the floor open in little groups to come up with a few more that have worked. I heard some things I hadn't thought of before, and I have the sheet with all the post-its on in my folder next to me right now, to be typed up and put onto our website proper. Sarah referenced a particularly good article in her presentation:
Bridges, Jane. Marketing the hospital library. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 2005, 24(3), 81-92.
I've definitely come up with a few things I'd like to do in the future, such as hook up with our internal conference organiser & see if we can offer things like summaries of available evidence on topics, or recommended reading lists.
After a lovely curry lunch (Leicester Hospitals do curry really rather well), there was plenty of time to do some catching up with old faces and meet quite a few new ones. Since I was on home turf, I did also get to pop back to the library and man the desk while the library assistants got some lunch too.
We had a brief talk from Jacqui Cox about moving clinical librarianship forwards after the break, and then it was time for more workshop sessions. I ran a session on a digests that was really just an informal chat between groups of what should and shouldn't go into a digest. We all mused about whether a search strategy should be there at all, and whether it should have star billing. As librarians, I think we tend to feel that the strategy is king, and it is, but I have an inkling that the customers may be more interested in the results than the process.
Having looked at the evaluation forms at the end of the day, I think we packed a lot in, and most people seemed happy with what they'd taken from the day. We try our best to plan days that allow for plenty of networking, since a lot of CLs work in a kind of isolation, and it's always nice to get out, meet colleagues and find reassurance that you're not the only person doing things a certain way. We're always interested in new suggestions for things we can do though.
Which leads me to the launch of the 5th International Clinical Librarian Conference. I put out a call for papers at the Study Day and via clin-lib@jiscmail.ac.uk this week, and the website is now live and accepting bookings (credit card payment to follow). Maybe something we talked about at the Study Day will be enough to spark one of you into submitting an abstract for a presentation in Birmingham next year!
I'm going to get the Study Day details on the website ASAP, but I'm moving house next week, so it might take just a little while longer.
What I can tell you about is the marketing session. Sarah gave one of her trademark presentations bursting with ideas, and then threw the floor open in little groups to come up with a few more that have worked. I heard some things I hadn't thought of before, and I have the sheet with all the post-its on in my folder next to me right now, to be typed up and put onto our website proper. Sarah referenced a particularly good article in her presentation:
Bridges, Jane. Marketing the hospital library. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 2005, 24(3), 81-92.
I've definitely come up with a few things I'd like to do in the future, such as hook up with our internal conference organiser & see if we can offer things like summaries of available evidence on topics, or recommended reading lists.
After a lovely curry lunch (Leicester Hospitals do curry really rather well), there was plenty of time to do some catching up with old faces and meet quite a few new ones. Since I was on home turf, I did also get to pop back to the library and man the desk while the library assistants got some lunch too.
We had a brief talk from Jacqui Cox about moving clinical librarianship forwards after the break, and then it was time for more workshop sessions. I ran a session on a digests that was really just an informal chat between groups of what should and shouldn't go into a digest. We all mused about whether a search strategy should be there at all, and whether it should have star billing. As librarians, I think we tend to feel that the strategy is king, and it is, but I have an inkling that the customers may be more interested in the results than the process.
Having looked at the evaluation forms at the end of the day, I think we packed a lot in, and most people seemed happy with what they'd taken from the day. We try our best to plan days that allow for plenty of networking, since a lot of CLs work in a kind of isolation, and it's always nice to get out, meet colleagues and find reassurance that you're not the only person doing things a certain way. We're always interested in new suggestions for things we can do though.
Which leads me to the launch of the 5th International Clinical Librarian Conference. I put out a call for papers at the Study Day and via clin-lib@jiscmail.ac.uk this week, and the website is now live and accepting bookings (credit card payment to follow). Maybe something we talked about at the Study Day will be enough to spark one of you into submitting an abstract for a presentation in Birmingham next year!
I'm going to get the Study Day details on the website ASAP, but I'm moving house next week, so it might take just a little while longer.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Protocol Harem
I recently put out a request to the Clinical Librarian mailing list for literature search protocols and I promised to share what I found. Life then took over with a pile of literature searches and the small matter of finishing my dissertation for an MSc in Health Services Research.
So, a bit of background. I had noticed that the whole library team were using very different approaches to how we went about doing literature searches, and presenting the results back to the requesters. Don't get me wrong, I think a variety of approaches is absolutely fine, we've spent time all doing the same search before and then discussing how we went about it, and my general anecdotal finding is that everyone finds the major relevant studies no matter how they combine the terms. Scoping something out first may be your thing, or you might, like me, jump straight in at Medline and throw words at it and launch into a full search. I realise my route probably isn't perfect, as with a therapy question you really ought to check for the highest level evidence on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews first (and it was nearly my downfall when I interviewed for this job - luckily I remembered in the nick of time, yet I've still not learned).
I thought we needed a bit of a plan at least, to make sure that people requesting searches get an equitable service. And the response I got to my request for literature search protocols was really quite good, since clin-lib doesn't get a lot of traffic and you can never be sure who's out there in the ether.
Some of the protocols are web-based, which I think is a really good idea. You're advertising exactly what your requester can hope as service when they ask their question. One such protocol is from the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists (RCOG). It's simple, succinct and explains clearly what you can expect. Elaine Garrett, from the RCOG told me that it's based on the ATTRACT protocol
A more detailed protocol is actually on the NHS Evidence "For Librarians" section, from the Thames Valley Health Libraries Network (updated link). This is really comprehensive and would definitely be of use to the novice searcher as well as the expert. I also received protocols from the Library & Knowledge Service at Derby Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which is very similar in the depth of detail to the Thames Valley version, and also another similar one from the Medical Library at the Royal Free Hospital, so thanks to Lisa Lawrence and Ruth Muscat respectively.
The main points to note from all of these is preparing for the search, making sure the question is understood, documenting the process (standards about the format are an issue we've been trying to iron out), searching the right resources for the question (in the right order? I'm undecided about the order being important), and presenting the results clearly back to the requester. We haven't yet decided whether to adopt a formal protocol at UHL, but we're looking at the way we all do searching, which I hope to share in the future.
There are so many factors at play in every single request for information that I'm not sure a definitive search protocol that could be applied to every single question exists. I view the protocols more as guidelines for searching, or as an aide memoire, but I would be interested to know what colleagues and readers of this blog think.
So, a bit of background. I had noticed that the whole library team were using very different approaches to how we went about doing literature searches, and presenting the results back to the requesters. Don't get me wrong, I think a variety of approaches is absolutely fine, we've spent time all doing the same search before and then discussing how we went about it, and my general anecdotal finding is that everyone finds the major relevant studies no matter how they combine the terms. Scoping something out first may be your thing, or you might, like me, jump straight in at Medline and throw words at it and launch into a full search. I realise my route probably isn't perfect, as with a therapy question you really ought to check for the highest level evidence on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews first (and it was nearly my downfall when I interviewed for this job - luckily I remembered in the nick of time, yet I've still not learned).
I thought we needed a bit of a plan at least, to make sure that people requesting searches get an equitable service. And the response I got to my request for literature search protocols was really quite good, since clin-lib doesn't get a lot of traffic and you can never be sure who's out there in the ether.
Some of the protocols are web-based, which I think is a really good idea. You're advertising exactly what your requester can hope as service when they ask their question. One such protocol is from the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists (RCOG). It's simple, succinct and explains clearly what you can expect. Elaine Garrett, from the RCOG told me that it's based on the ATTRACT protocol
A more detailed protocol is actually on the NHS Evidence "For Librarians" section, from the Thames Valley Health Libraries Network (updated link). This is really comprehensive and would definitely be of use to the novice searcher as well as the expert. I also received protocols from the Library & Knowledge Service at Derby Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which is very similar in the depth of detail to the Thames Valley version, and also another similar one from the Medical Library at the Royal Free Hospital, so thanks to Lisa Lawrence and Ruth Muscat respectively.
The main points to note from all of these is preparing for the search, making sure the question is understood, documenting the process (standards about the format are an issue we've been trying to iron out), searching the right resources for the question (in the right order? I'm undecided about the order being important), and presenting the results clearly back to the requester. We haven't yet decided whether to adopt a formal protocol at UHL, but we're looking at the way we all do searching, which I hope to share in the future.
There are so many factors at play in every single request for information that I'm not sure a definitive search protocol that could be applied to every single question exists. I view the protocols more as guidelines for searching, or as an aide memoire, but I would be interested to know what colleagues and readers of this blog think.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Bibliography updated
At long last I've found the time to wade through all of my Pubmed search alerts, and my frankly quite flaky NHS HDAS search alerts & update the Clinical Librarian bibliography on our web site.
We also have a link to do a quick Pubmed search from the site, so even if I've been slack, you can see what's been published recently in the field. It's not the most sophisticated search, so if you have comments or suggestions, feel free to let us know!
http://www.uhl-library.nhs.uk/cl_research.html
We also have a link to do a quick Pubmed search from the site, so even if I've been slack, you can see what's been published recently in the field. It's not the most sophisticated search, so if you have comments or suggestions, feel free to let us know!
http://www.uhl-library.nhs.uk/cl_research.html
Monday, May 10, 2010
Study Day 11th October 2010
It's a way off yet, but during the season of mists and mellow fruitfulness, we're planning our next Clinical Librarian Study Day. For more details, visit our web site: http://bit.ly/95rVGH
We're planning on making it much more about what people say they want to talk about from previous evaluations, and to have a real chance to share ideas between all attendees. Hope you can make it!
We're planning on making it much more about what people say they want to talk about from previous evaluations, and to have a real chance to share ideas between all attendees. Hope you can make it!
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Evidence summaries
So how do Clinical Librarians present their search results to clinicians? It's something I get asked about a lot. I don't know if my way's the right way, and I'd be interested to know what other people do too.
Generally I consider the level of evidence, and the date published and go from there. I never paraphrase results, I always lift the conclusion from the abstract. Due to time, it's rare that I'd do a full critical appraisal of a full text article, so most decisions of whether to include a study are based on a reading of the abstract.
I'd be really interested to know how others approach this, and what your opinions are. Please comment below!
Monday, August 17, 2009
Will we see you at ICML?
At the end of this month, Sarah, Louise & Linda are heading out to Brisbane to host the Clinical Librarian Conference aspect of the ICML conference in Brisbane. http://www.icml2009.com/events/iclc.html Please do consider attending the sessions if you're going to be there!
Friday, May 15, 2009
Clinical Librarian Study Day, GETEC, 8th May 2009
Last Friday was the Clinical Librarian Study Day: Strength in Depth. A summary of the day is available on our web site.
Our Keynote Speaker, Andrew Miniuks, Head of the Content and Quality Directorate for NHS Evidence spoke to us about the new search engine. He told us that one of the main aims in designing NHS Evidence was to define "what does good look like?" Customisation of the site is set to launch later this year. Andrew said that NHS Evidence want to understand how advanced users like clinical librarians assess the performance of the FAST search engine (the new NHS Evidence main page search) relative to the current Healthcare Database Advanced Search (HDAS or Search 2.0).
The plan for NHS Evidence is to run a user feedback-driven evaluation, so it seems like it's up to us to let them know exactly what we think.
NHS Evidence doesn't want to own the content of the results that the search engine retrieves. Each provider of evidence is accredited according to their criteria, and the plan is to re-accredit providers every 3 years. NICE were also put through the accreditation, so no easy ride for them, apparently.
The Panel Discussion featured Sarah Sutton (SS), Clinical Librarian, Andrew Miniuks (AM) and David Stewart(DS), Director of Health Libraries for North West Health Care Libraries Unit. The question of what was going to happen to the NHS Core Content resources now was asked, and AM replied that at the moment that was uncertain, but hoped for an answer by October '09. DS stated that the SHA Library Leads (SHALL) don't want to see a return to regional portals for electronic content.
AM also said that NHS Evidence would be tracking 0 hits results on the database to see why they may occur.
SS stated that NHS Evidence should really be put on every Trust's intranet pages if the NHS want users to use it instead of Google.
Another delegate asked about the workstreams that might be lost now that the National Library for Health no longer exists. DS answered that the SHALL group was planning to pick up as much of the work on the National Service Framework for Libraries, the Process Costing Framework, alerting service etc. as possible. SS then asked if SHALL is now the "mothership" for NHS librarians, and DS said yes.
AM also informed us that NHS Evidence are working on a better marketing strategy. There is an "Ambassadors' Pack" which apparently says that NHS Evidence is "no longer FOR librarians", but Linda Atkinson pointed out that the National Library for Health was never FOR librarians either, it was a LIBRARY. The general consensus of the audience was that NHS Evidence should not forget that we are their best marketing tool, and their most expert users, so alienating librarians would be a very bad move.
The following sessions Clinical Librarians: Variations a theme presented 5 different models of Clinical Librarians. These presentations are all available on our web site. Ann Daly's presentation on her model based in an acute Trust also has a very true-to-life video on it which is worth watching. Lyn Wilson is a Patient Information Librarian which sounds like a really rewarding and challenging role, and with her library's geographical position at the entrance to the hospital, a really valued role too! Stephen Ayre presented to us the organisational approach taken at his Trust, and the way in which he works closely with the Trust's Audit team. The PCT Commissioning side of things was presented to us by Richard Crookes, and his searches for "Exceptional Case Reviews" on non-commissioned treatments sounded really interesting and as though they can make a real difference for individual patient care. Hélène Gorring presented on the role of a Clinical Librarian in a Mental Health Trust which had had fabulous feedback from the clinical teams.
The two workshop sessions were in the afternoon. The first, "What are we missing?" which I facilitated along with Janette Camosso-Stefinovic, was about the different sources we use to answer clinical (and sometimes non-clinical) queries. I've written this up and added it to the study report, as well as adding the web sites mentioned to the presentation.
Louise Hull is currently making sense of the notes from the second session on search filters and as soon as she's done so I'll make sure it goes onto the web site.
We've had some really good feedback on the day, as well as few ideas for how to improve for our next study day!
Our Keynote Speaker, Andrew Miniuks, Head of the Content and Quality Directorate for NHS Evidence spoke to us about the new search engine. He told us that one of the main aims in designing NHS Evidence was to define "what does good look like?" Customisation of the site is set to launch later this year. Andrew said that NHS Evidence want to understand how advanced users like clinical librarians assess the performance of the FAST search engine (the new NHS Evidence main page search) relative to the current Healthcare Database Advanced Search (HDAS or Search 2.0).
The plan for NHS Evidence is to run a user feedback-driven evaluation, so it seems like it's up to us to let them know exactly what we think.
NHS Evidence doesn't want to own the content of the results that the search engine retrieves. Each provider of evidence is accredited according to their criteria, and the plan is to re-accredit providers every 3 years. NICE were also put through the accreditation, so no easy ride for them, apparently.
The Panel Discussion featured Sarah Sutton (SS), Clinical Librarian, Andrew Miniuks (AM) and David Stewart(DS), Director of Health Libraries for North West Health Care Libraries Unit. The question of what was going to happen to the NHS Core Content resources now was asked, and AM replied that at the moment that was uncertain, but hoped for an answer by October '09. DS stated that the SHA Library Leads (SHALL) don't want to see a return to regional portals for electronic content.
AM also said that NHS Evidence would be tracking 0 hits results on the database to see why they may occur.
SS stated that NHS Evidence should really be put on every Trust's intranet pages if the NHS want users to use it instead of Google.
Another delegate asked about the workstreams that might be lost now that the National Library for Health no longer exists. DS answered that the SHALL group was planning to pick up as much of the work on the National Service Framework for Libraries, the Process Costing Framework, alerting service etc. as possible. SS then asked if SHALL is now the "mothership" for NHS librarians, and DS said yes.
AM also informed us that NHS Evidence are working on a better marketing strategy. There is an "Ambassadors' Pack" which apparently says that NHS Evidence is "no longer FOR librarians", but Linda Atkinson pointed out that the National Library for Health was never FOR librarians either, it was a LIBRARY. The general consensus of the audience was that NHS Evidence should not forget that we are their best marketing tool, and their most expert users, so alienating librarians would be a very bad move.
The following sessions Clinical Librarians: Variations a theme presented 5 different models of Clinical Librarians. These presentations are all available on our web site. Ann Daly's presentation on her model based in an acute Trust also has a very true-to-life video on it which is worth watching. Lyn Wilson is a Patient Information Librarian which sounds like a really rewarding and challenging role, and with her library's geographical position at the entrance to the hospital, a really valued role too! Stephen Ayre presented to us the organisational approach taken at his Trust, and the way in which he works closely with the Trust's Audit team. The PCT Commissioning side of things was presented to us by Richard Crookes, and his searches for "Exceptional Case Reviews" on non-commissioned treatments sounded really interesting and as though they can make a real difference for individual patient care. Hélène Gorring presented on the role of a Clinical Librarian in a Mental Health Trust which had had fabulous feedback from the clinical teams.
The two workshop sessions were in the afternoon. The first, "What are we missing?" which I facilitated along with Janette Camosso-Stefinovic, was about the different sources we use to answer clinical (and sometimes non-clinical) queries. I've written this up and added it to the study report, as well as adding the web sites mentioned to the presentation.
Louise Hull is currently making sense of the notes from the second session on search filters and as soon as she's done so I'll make sure it goes onto the web site.
We've had some really good feedback on the day, as well as few ideas for how to improve for our next study day!
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Contacts list now online
I've finally managed to collate all of the contacts details I was sent into an online list which is located here on our web site. Many thanks to everyone who took the time to send me theirs, and if you're not on the list and would like to be, please email me.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Adding yourself to the CL Map
Go to map: Clinical Librarians Map
(ETA: You need to be logged into Google to make this work.)
(Or just to the left of this screen.)
Select Edit button on left hand side panel
This will release the option to add a marker:
Select the placemarker tool.
Drag & drop the placemarker to your location.
A dialog box should appear for you to add your details.
Click on OK when you’re happy.
Click on the “done” button on the left hand panel when you’ve finished.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Mapping Clinical Librarians
At Leicester we often get asked about people coming to visit us, and about who else might be available to visit to talk to about clinical librarianship. Ruth Foxlee from York (via Oz!) was asking me about this very thing only this week.
As I've been thinking about the CL contacts database, and how best to set it up, I've also been thinking about how we could map CLs so we can see at a glance where other CLs are working. I think I might have a working map here: CL Google map but I'm not totally sure I've made it work. I've been experimenting with Frappr too, but it seemed to have a mind of its own.
If anyone has any better solutions, please let me know! And if it does work, I hope you add yourselves.
As I've been thinking about the CL contacts database, and how best to set it up, I've also been thinking about how we could map CLs so we can see at a glance where other CLs are working. I think I might have a working map here: CL Google map but I'm not totally sure I've made it work. I've been experimenting with Frappr too, but it seemed to have a mind of its own.
If anyone has any better solutions, please let me know! And if it does work, I hope you add yourselves.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Clinical Librarian Study Day : Strength in Depth
Cure your winter blues with nearly guaranteed good weather and some useful training!
For the Clinical Librarian Conference in 2006 we had wonderful sunshine, for the Study Day in 2007 another gorgeous day. Come to this years Study Day and see if we can maintain our record. And even if the weather is terrible we have a stimulating day to distract you from the view out of the windows!
You can find out all you need to know about NHS Evidence from our keynote speaker Carol Bewick, Engagement and management Programme Director, NHS Evidence. Then hear about the new areas Clinical Librarians are now working in. In the afternoon we will be finding the evidence that you may be missing by looking in new places and using new search strategies in practical workshops. All this is priced at a level that a credit crunched trust can afford. We even have a January
This day is not limited to Clinical Librarians, anyone working in health libraries will find it useful.
Please go to http://www.uhl-library.nhs.uk/CLstudydays.html to find out more and make your booking.
Monday, January 19, 2009
CL contacts list
On the UHL NHS Trust Libraries web site, we've always had a list of clinical librarians in the UK & Internationally who are prepared to a) have their contact details online and b) be contacted by other librarians.
Our web site has spam-proof software to protect email addresses.
If you'd like to be included, please send me your contact details & once I've collated enough I will add them to the site.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Winter getting you down - we have a super day for you to look forward to!
Following the very successful Clinical Librarian Conference in York, we are running a Study Day in Leicester on May 12th 2008.
The Study Day will be looking at issues you raised at the conference, starting off with the quality assurance of Clinical Librarian services, then how we can contribute to and utilise the NLH Specialist Libraries and finally an afternoon on management issues in Clinical Librarianship, such as how to set up a service, maintain funding and negotiate for resources.
There will be lots of breakout sessions for you to discuss the topics, so do consider the issues before you come, to get the most out of the day.We are having it on a Monday so if you have anything or anybody you want to visit in the Midlands you can have a long weekend away. This will give you a chance for a long visit to the Leicester Space Centre or a day out at Warwick Castle or to catch a play at Stratford or shop til you drop in Birmingham. Alternatively you could go on a Curry Crawl of Leicester's famous Golden Mile.
The study day in very competitively priced at £75 and there will be exhibitions by our sponsors at all meal and beverage breaks so you can keep on top off new developments and collect some new biros at the same time!
Please go to the study day WebPages to find out more:http://www.uhl-library.nhs.uk/clinical_librarian/clstudyday2008/clstudyday2008.htm
The Study Day will be looking at issues you raised at the conference, starting off with the quality assurance of Clinical Librarian services, then how we can contribute to and utilise the NLH Specialist Libraries and finally an afternoon on management issues in Clinical Librarianship, such as how to set up a service, maintain funding and negotiate for resources.
There will be lots of breakout sessions for you to discuss the topics, so do consider the issues before you come, to get the most out of the day.We are having it on a Monday so if you have anything or anybody you want to visit in the Midlands you can have a long weekend away. This will give you a chance for a long visit to the Leicester Space Centre or a day out at Warwick Castle or to catch a play at Stratford or shop til you drop in Birmingham. Alternatively you could go on a Curry Crawl of Leicester's famous Golden Mile.
The study day in very competitively priced at £75 and there will be exhibitions by our sponsors at all meal and beverage breaks so you can keep on top off new developments and collect some new biros at the same time!
Please go to the study day WebPages to find out more:http://www.uhl-library.nhs.uk/clinical_librarian/clstudyday2008/clstudyday2008.htm
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
New Clinical Librarian at UHL
As some of you may know, I am due to go on maternity leave from 17th January. I'm planning to take 9 months off, and intend to return on 3rd November 2008.
Louise Hull has been appointed to the post of Clinical Librarian while I am away, and she will be covering my existing clinical directorates of Gastroenterology, Stroke, Surgical Services and Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain Management. However, she will also be covering Cardiorespiratory and Musculoskeletal Services (which I will pick up when I return). Louise starts this post on 4th Feb 2008 and is going to be based at the Glenfield Library to begin with. She can be contacted via email: Louise.hull@uhl-tr.nhs.uk
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
NLH Document of the week
Taken from the National Library for Health "Document of the week"
Librarian support decreased the length of hospital stay.
Case control study looking at the effect of librarian support on patient care.
This case-control study found that during residents' morning report, where case discussion was taking place, supported by a librarian-guided, computerized literature search, the length of hospital stay for patients was reduced. The researchers concluded that "Morning report, in association with a computerized literature search guided by the librarians, was an effective means for introducing evidence-based medicine into patient care practices."
View full text
View print version
View supplementary material
Citation:Decreased hospital length of stay associated with presentation of cases at morning report with librarian supportDE Banks, R Shi, DF Timm, KA Christopher, DC Duggar, M Comegys, J McLartyJournal of the Medical Library Association, 2007, 95(4), pp371-373
I've just printed off & read this article through, using the CASP Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case-Control studies.
The study asked the question of whether a combination of Morning Report + librarian-provided literature search results altered length of stay, hospital charges (it's a US-based study) or readmission rates. Over 8 months, 105 patients were presented at Morning Report, and these were apparently random, as the doctors involved were given no directions over which patients to select. The comparisons were drawn from the hospital register of almost 20,000 patients admitted over the past 5yrs and 7months, and were matched by ICD9 diagnoses, age & secondary diagnoses. The results of the study show that the median length of stay was 2days in those patients presented at Morning Report (p=0.0238). The authors appear to have taken into account issues of selection bias, and the problems with matching all patients.
I've been thinking a bit more about this, and it is hard to tell which aspect of the intervention made the real difference - was it the extra interest from Morning Report, the literature search, or both? And were the cases presented naturally more interesting/complicated cases? If they were more complex conditions that stimulated interest, you'd expect more time to spent on the patient, possibly more diagnostic tests, and interventions. I suppose it all balances out, but it made me think about which clinical questions make it to the Clinical Librarian.
It's a eally interesting study, as we're always looking for ways that CLs make an impact on patient care, and it can be hard to define what it is we do. Often we're using anecdotal evidence to make a case for our necessity, and this article provides the kind of evidence that people should be listening to. What do you think?
Librarian support decreased the length of hospital stay.
Case control study looking at the effect of librarian support on patient care.
This case-control study found that during residents' morning report, where case discussion was taking place, supported by a librarian-guided, computerized literature search, the length of hospital stay for patients was reduced. The researchers concluded that "Morning report, in association with a computerized literature search guided by the librarians, was an effective means for introducing evidence-based medicine into patient care practices."
View full text
View print version
View supplementary material
Citation:Decreased hospital length of stay associated with presentation of cases at morning report with librarian supportDE Banks, R Shi, DF Timm, KA Christopher, DC Duggar, M Comegys, J McLartyJournal of the Medical Library Association, 2007, 95(4), pp371-373
I've just printed off & read this article through, using the CASP Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case-Control studies.
The study asked the question of whether a combination of Morning Report + librarian-provided literature search results altered length of stay, hospital charges (it's a US-based study) or readmission rates. Over 8 months, 105 patients were presented at Morning Report, and these were apparently random, as the doctors involved were given no directions over which patients to select. The comparisons were drawn from the hospital register of almost 20,000 patients admitted over the past 5yrs and 7months, and were matched by ICD9 diagnoses, age & secondary diagnoses. The results of the study show that the median length of stay was 2days in those patients presented at Morning Report (p=0.0238). The authors appear to have taken into account issues of selection bias, and the problems with matching all patients.
I've been thinking a bit more about this, and it is hard to tell which aspect of the intervention made the real difference - was it the extra interest from Morning Report, the literature search, or both? And were the cases presented naturally more interesting/complicated cases? If they were more complex conditions that stimulated interest, you'd expect more time to spent on the patient, possibly more diagnostic tests, and interventions. I suppose it all balances out, but it made me think about which clinical questions make it to the Clinical Librarian.
It's a eally interesting study, as we're always looking for ways that CLs make an impact on patient care, and it can be hard to define what it is we do. Often we're using anecdotal evidence to make a case for our necessity, and this article provides the kind of evidence that people should be listening to. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)