1. Review of the Clinical Librarian Service Jane Surtees Jane.surtees@derbyhospitals.nhs.uk Clinical Librarian Royal Derby Hospital Derby Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

2. Methodology  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

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

4. Staff Profile

5. Information 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

6. Information Needs Profile - 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

7. Resources 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

8. Impact of information gained 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

9. 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

11. Literature Searching Service 2009-2010: a review

12. 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.

13. 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

14. 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”

18. Literature Searches 2009 N = 403 Breakdown by job role

19. Literature Searches 2009 Highest number of requests for general patient care Most requests in Sep/Oct

20. Literature Searches 2010 N = 402

21. Literature Searches 2010 Majority service development followed by patient care

22. 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.

23. How relevant were the results to your search request?

24. Have You Read The Summary Sheet Provided?

25. If You Did Read The Summary, Was It….

26. What Was The Immediate Impact Of The Information Provided On Your Knowledge?

27. Did The Information Impact On Any Of The Following Areas?

28. How Did You Hear About The Literature Search Service?

29. How Would You Rate This Service?

30. Conclusions  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

31. Conclusions 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

33. Thank you for listening. Questions?