This poster was presented at the 2014 CHLA/ABSC Annual Conference in Montréal as poster #28. Do hospital libraries provide services that impact patients? Out short survey looks at how healthcare providers who request literature searches from the library use the information they receive to help patients. We want you to use our survey in your own library! To view a copy please visit: http://fluidsurveys.com/s/literature-searching-impact-survey-site/

1. Evaluating the impact of literature searching services on
patient care through the use of a quick assessment tool
Ashley Farrell, MLIS, Health Sciences Library & Archives, Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region
Jeff Mason, MLIS, AHIP, Research & Health Information Services, Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region
Introduction:
The Regina Qu’Appelle Health Region is an integrated health system located around
Regina, SK. The region provides care to over 260,000 people in the southern half of
Saskatchewan. In 2013-2014 the Health Sciences Library answered over 800 literature
search requests for staff. Practitioners identified the purpose of 36% of these questions
as patient care.
In 2013 the library held a strategic planning retreat to identify measurements of success
for the library. The retreat determined that the statistics we currently collect do not
measure the impact or value the library has on patients.
A wealth of literature exists about measuring the impact and value library services have
on patient care (1, 2). Most studies look at library services broadly, not at a single service
(1). In addition, no single set of questions exists to assess the impact of library services
making it difficult to compare studies (1-3). Conclusions about impact are difficult due to
confounding factors and recall bias (1, 4).
To demonstrate our libary’s value within our organization we chose to use our literature
searching service as a way to connect the information we send practitioners to the care
provided to patients. Our objectives were to create a:
● Short (2-3 minute) set of validated questions;
● Quick-assessment tool to be used by other libraries.
Method:
All practitioners who asked a patient care question were sent an invitation to participate
in the survey as a preamble to the answers sent by the librarian through LibAnswers.
A reminder was sent one week after the initial invitation (Fig. 1). Reminders and coffee
cards were sent by library technicians to maintain anonymity of respondents.
The survey was created in FluidSurveys. Branching and survey logic were used to
minimize the number of questions (Fig. 2). Respondents were presented with 4-6
questions. All questions were multiple choice with an open-ended option. Librarians,
research staff and prospective respondents evaluated the survey to assess face and
content validity. Responses were collected anonymously. Upon completion of the survey,
respondents were directed to a second separate survey to receive a $5 coffee card.
Practitioners received an invitation to participate for each patient care question asked
while the survey was running. If more than one person requested a response to the same
question, invitations were sent out to each person.
A three week pilot began on January 27th and was completed without issue. All pilot
responses were included in our analysis.
Conclusion:
Information provided by the Health Sciences Library
informs decisions about how patients are cared for in
the Health Region. In all cases practitioners indicate
the information provided will have uses beyond their
immediate information need.
It is possible for libraries to transform their
literature searching services measures into a clear
demonstration of their value within their organization.
This value can be assessed without requiring much
time or effort from practitioners. In addition, by sending
survey invitations with the answer, librarians can
minimize recall bias.
Potential Significance:
The results of this study show that libraries can
affect change in patient care. Our research tool was
developed and validated in such a way as to be
used by other libraries to assess their own impact
on patients. If other libraries choose to use our tool it
would be the first step towards assessing our value
using a common set of questions and ensure the
ability to compare the performance of libraries in
organizations around the world.
Acknowledgements:
Canadian Health Libraries Association/Association des
bibliothèques de la santé du Canada
Julie Degroot and Ali Bell, RQHR Research & Health Information
Services
RQHR Health Sciences Library Staff
All those who responded to the survey
Further Reading:
A copy of our survey is available for anyone who would like to
see all the questions we asked and the survey logic we employed
or to use in your own library: http://fluidsurveys.com/s/literature-
searching-impact-survey-site/
Fig. 1: Survey invitations were sent by LibAnswers to those
who identified the purpose of their question as “patient care”.
Literature
Search
Request
LibAnswers
Patient
Care
Answer
+
Invitation
Reminder
Other
Purpose
Answer
Results:
As of May 26, 2014 we have received 44 responses with a response rate of 51.8% and a completion rate of
100%. Most responses are from physicians, nurses, pharmacists and therapists (including physiotherapists,
respiratory therapists, occupational therapists, and speech language pathologists) (Fig. 3).
Asked if the information received answered their question 75% (33) of respondents indicated “yes”; 4.5%
(2) said “no’; and 20.5% (9) said they received a partial answer.
If we answered the question we asked about the immediate impact the information had on patients (Fig. 4).
63.6% (21) indicated the information impacted treatment or management; 12.1% (4) said they avoided an
adverse event or critical incident; and 33.3% indicated an impact we did not list (e.g. patient education). We
then asked for more detail about how the information provided affected the treatment or management of
patients (Fig. 5). Responses are split across drug choice impacts and impacts related to other treatments or
management.
Partially
Did we answer
your questions?
Yes No
Immediate
Impact
Why not?
Future
uses
References:
1. Weightman AL. Williamson J. Library & Knowledge
Development Network (LKDN) Quality and Statistics Group. The
value and impact of information provided through library services
for patient care: A systematic review. Health Information &
Libraries Journal. 2005 Mar;22(1):4-25.
2. O’Connor P. Determining the impact of health library services
on patient care: A review of the literature. Health Information &
Libraries Journal. 2002 Mar;19(1):1-13.
3. Weightman A, Urquhart C, Spink S, Thomas R, National Library
for Health Library Services Development,Group. The value and
impact of information provided through library services for patient
care: Developing guidance for best practice. Health Information &
Libraries Journal. 2009 Mar;26(1):63-71.
4. Bryant SL, Gray A. Demonstrating the positive impact of
information support on patient care in primary care: A rapid
literature review. Health Information & Libraries Journal. 2006
Jun;23(2):118-25.
Fig. 2: Branching and survey logic were used to reduce
the number of questions asked. 4-6 questions were asked
depending on how the respondents answered questions.
Fig. 3: Most respondents are physicians, nurses,
pharmacists or therapists.
Fig. 4: The most common immediate use of the information
provided by the library is for decisions about treatment or
management of patients.
Fig. 5: Specific impacts on treatment or management of
patients include which drugs are prescribed or what other
treatment option is selected.
Fig. 6: Regardless of whether or not the question was
answered, everyone intends to use the information provided
in the future.
Finally, we asked all respondents how they intended to use the information we provided even if we did not
answer their question (Fig. 6). All respondents indicate they intend to use the information provided in the
future.
14
9
6
2
1
2
1
1
5
3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Physician
Nurse
Pharmacist
Resident
Dietitian
Physiotherapist
Respiratory Therapist
Manager/Administrator
Other Therapist
Other Staff
What best describes your primary job duties?
6
1
21
5
4
2
1
11
0 5 10 15 20 25
No immediate impact
Diagnosis
Treatment/Management
Refreshed memory
Avoided adverse event(s)
Prevented referral or consult
Initiated referral or consult
Other impacts
What was the immediate impact of the information you
received?
5
7
4
6
5
3
0
0
0
3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Determined choice of drug(s)
Confirmed choice of drug(s)
Changed choice of drug(s)
Determined other treatment(s)
Confirmed other treatment(s)
Changed other treatment(s)
Determined post-hospital plan
Confirmed post-hospital plan
Changed post-hospital plan
Other
Specifically, how did the information impact your
treatment/management?
0
13
25
29
15
6
8
6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Information will not be used
Approach to one patient
Approach to future patients
Share/discuss with colleagues
Teaching
Research or publication
Revision of policy, etc.
Other
How will you use the information provided in the future?
Medical Media Services-5838-14-ddh