1. 1 Debra Thornton Clinical Librarian, Royal Preston Hospital James Allen Assistant Librarian, Stepping Hill Hospital, Stockport A Journal Club for Librarians

2. 2 Background  LIHNN (Libraries and Information for Health Network Northwest)  NW Clinical Librarians group   www.aditus.nhs.uk www.aditus.nhs.uk

3. 3 Literature use by the group

4. 4 Building a culture of evidence based practice  We expect them to do it so why shouldn’t we?  “Patients receive effective treatment and care that conforms to nationally agreed best practice” and “is delivered by healthcare professionals who make clinical decisions based on evidence based practice.” Dept of Health 2005  “it is as reasonable to expect that you will be familiar with the findings of these three important reviews as it is to expect your GP to be up-to-date with current best evidence.” Booth, 2004

5. 5 We’ll call it a journal club!

6. 6 Objectives of the Club  Develop Critical Appraisal skills  Keep up to date with library literature  Peer support (sharing best practice)  Writing a summary (CAT)  Identify gaps in library literature

7. 7 How did it work..?  Identifying an article  Research  ‘health information’  Relevant to the clinical librarian  One person suggests an article they think looks interesting…

8. 8  What topics have we covered?  Information needs analysis  Evidence-based sources of evidence  Search strategies for qualitative information  Using Google for diagnosis  Getting research into practice

9. 9 How did we appraise?  CASP  CASP http://www.phru.nhs.uk/casp/critical_ appraisal_tools.htm http://www.phru.nhs.uk/casp/critical_ appraisal_tools.htm  SCHARR  SCHARR http://www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/eblib/ http://www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/eblib/  EBLIP Toolkit  EBLIP Toolkit http://eblip.net.auhttp://eblip.net.au

10. 10 When did we do it?  First in May 2006  One hour at the end of our quarterly group meeting (theory!)  Less than one hour (practice!)

11. 11 At the meeting…  One person leads the discussion  General description of the article  Progress through the questions of the appraisal tool  Discussion  Agreement on the reliability of the article  And on how it may impact on our practice

12. 12 Good points  Members knew each other and were prepared to talk openly  Different areas of expertise meant we all shared ideas and knowledge  Encouraged CA training course attendance

13. 13 Benefits  Develop CA skills  Keep up to date with library literature  Peer support (sharing best practice)  Writing a summary (CAT)  Identify gaps in library literature – do some research?

14. 14 Problems  Didn’t do enough background research  Didn’t know how to go about it  Exhausted by end of meeting  Rushed  Ran out of time  Reaching agreement – everybody wanted something different

15. 15 So what are we doing next?  More structure in choosing articles  And more structure in exploring a topic  A broader view of the literature, rather than a single answer from a single article

16. 16  More use of technology to encourage discussion and engagement with the evidence in between meetings  Broader membership across the North West  Wider distribution of results

17. 17

18. 18 So………….. More research = More evidence = More journal clubs? Over to you…..

19. 19 References  Dept of Health (2005) Standards for Better Health  Booth, A (2004) Rave reviews. Health Information and Libraries Journal 21 (2) 134 - 7