David Lightfoot, Alissa Epworth, Farah Friesen, Chi Le Thi Lan, Ekaterina Lolova, Bridget Morant Understanding and Enhancing Library Services in Support of Systematic Reviews Introduction Results Methodology In rapidly evolving fields such as healthcare, institutions adjust benchmarks to align with changing priorities and evolving strategic plans. Hospital libraries that use statistics to measure and demonstrate their influence within their institutions need to do likewise. Anecdotal evidence suggests an increasing demand for Canadian health sciences librarians to participate in systematic reviews. Concurrently, the library and information sciences literature continues to study and explore new roles for health science librarians. Based on the experiences of one hospital library, this poster proposes different ways to represent hospital librarians’ increased participation in the production of systematic reviews. The Scotiabank Health Sciences Library at St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH) has reliable data of the time librarians have spent working on systematic reviews for the last three years since the adoption of LibAnalytics, a software system that automatically collects and sorts data. However, this data—raw personnel hours—fails to fully capture our increased impact on systematic reviews published at SMH. This poster explores meaningful ways to impart to our peers and hospital administrators a more holistic picture of our contributions to systematic reviews  Traditional tracking of systematic review searching through LibAnalytics  Demonstrated Output—recognized authorship or acknowledgement by name.  Demonstrated Output supplemented by selected categories from Beverly, Booth & Bath, adding a category for recognized authorship or acknowledgement by name. The SMH Library compared how our current statistics measure our progress against recent and current literature on librarian participation in systematic reviews, as well as annual reports generated by our department of research. Instead of tracking hours, we propose tracking measurable output—participation in published reviews—and types of services, and comparing our work to current professional literature. We also measure our participation using select roles in systematic reviews identified by Beverly Booth and Bath. We include the participation of all library staff, not just information specialists, in order to make a better case for our value. As a point of comparison, we include the output of a Master of Library Science and former Scotiabank Health Sciences Library intern, who has been hired as a research coordinator at SMH, as she illustrates what further roles librarians may wish to explore. Objective Conclusion As the role of libraries and librarians evolves, documenting our contributions to systematic reviews allows us to highlight our inclusion as part of a research team. Bibliography Beverley, C. A., Booth, A., & Bath, P. A. (2003). The role of the information specialist in the systematic review process: a health information case study.Health Information & Libraries Journal, 20(2), Crum, J. A., & Cooper, I. D. (2013). Emerging roles for biomedical librarians: a survey of current practice, challenges, and changes. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 101(4), 278. Murphy, S. A., & Boden, C. (2015). Benchmarking participation of Canadian university health sciences librarians in systematic reviews. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 103(2), 73. Data Synthesizer Data Extractor Critical Appraiser Reference Manager Acknowledged or included as an author Search Strategy Developer Research Question Formulator Report Writer Disseminator Project Manager Document Supplier Roles for Library Staff LibAnalytics DataDemonstrated Output Scotiabank Health Sciences Library T Contact Information Scotiabank Health Sciences Library, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto ON