Engaging users in a journals review project hslg e lib seminar may 2012


Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • “ .“
  • .
  • Engaging users in a journals review project hslg e lib seminar may 2012

    1. 1. Engaging users ina journals reviewprojectAnne Murphy BA DLIS MScHead LibrarianTallaght HospitaleLibrary Management Workshop,HSLG, 10thMarch 2012
    2. 2. Tallaght Hospital,DublinProvide tertiary service to 400,000 people in 3 countiesNational referral centre for some clinical specialities
    3. 3. Tallaght HospitalLibraryLibrary website:Evidence & reference databases300 journals in 200912,000 books
    4. 4. 201125%7%Hospitalaverage
    5. 5. TOTAL73titles cancelled in 2011
    6. 6. 201215%
    7. 7. TOTAL31titles cancelled in 2012
    8. 8. Number of journalsubscriptions300 2862131820501001502002503003502009 2010 2011 2012
    9. 9. Baseline of 300 journalsin 2009147331182RetainedCancelled in 2010Cancelled in 2011Cancelled in 2012Total of 118 cancelled titles in 3
    10. 10. Not so fast...31%
    11. 11. TOTAL31 + 83Journals cut in 2012
    12. 12. Number of journals 2012300286213182990501001502002503003502009 2010 2011 2012 2012
    13. 13. Baseline of 300 Journals in 20091473318399RetainedCancelled in 2010Cancelled in 201115%cut in 201231%cut in 2012Total of 201 cancelled titles in 3
    14. 14. So. How come ourusers are stillspeaking to us?
    15. 15. Literature Search• Budget reductions are a primary driver forlibraries in undertaking a journals review.• Cancellations can damage the relationshipbetween users and their library ifcommunication is poorly or incompletelyexecuted.• Libraries are keen to include users in thereviews to safeguard good workingrelationships with users and ensure therelevance of collections
    16. 16. The Journal ReviewProject Meet the budget target Protect good relationship with staff Retain the most relevant, valued and usedjournals
    17. 17. CommunicationStrategy• Open a dialogue with our users• Use the Project to market the Library• Target group: doctors, senior clinicalstaff and managers, and theManagement Team• Key message: You have a great Library• Channels: Paper, email, website, face toface
    18. 18. Informed DecisionsBuild datasets of metrics and evaluations
    19. 19. Identify the journalsCore1%Package8%Secure funding9%For review82%286 journals in total236 for review
    20. 20. Conduct the userevaluationsRating scale:1. Essential2. Cancel only ifnecessary3. May be cancelled4. Cancel• Identify the survey group• Survey method: paper or online• Decide what titles asking to evaluate
    21. 21. User evaluation surveyformColumns:Journal titleRating scaleDepartmentFormat of journalSubscription status
    22. 22. A completed surveyform
    23. 23. Respondents in 201136% response rateMedical47%Nursing17%Allied Health29%Other professionals2%Management5%Response rates:100% Rheumatology12% Surgery
    24. 24. User evaluations 2012Leaner and cleanerIncreased the numbersurveyed to 550 anddecreased the number ofcustomised forms to 31
    25. 25. Respondents in 2012Medical41%Nursing19%AlliedHealth29%Management7%Other Professionals4%34% response rate
    26. 26. Compile the userevaluationsColumns:JournalDecisionDepartment4 sets of columns, 1 per rating: number & percentageCheck columnTotal population of respondents
    27. 27. Compile the journalmetricsCostUsageCost per use
    28. 28. The decision-making processin
    29. 29. Decision-makingcriteria• Principles– departments would have equitable coverage– The most used and most valued would beretained• 2011 - 1 title per dept to cut• 2012– 15%: 2 journals per department to keep– 31%: 4 core titles and aimed to retain 1 journalper department
    30. 30. Round 1 – Identify definitekeepers30 titles
    31. 31. Round 2: two thresholds44 journals tagged for probablecancellation9 journals identified forpurchaseCost > €2,000OR< 1O uses
    32. 32. Round 3Departmental /Speciality titles55 journalsidentified forcancellation
    33. 33. Round 4Departmental /Speciality titles18 journalsidentified forcancellation
    34. 34. Communicate theresultsKey Message: Use the journals
    35. 35. Feedback in 2011“This is very interesting...”
    36. 36. Post-operative Review2011• The decision-making process provedsuccessful• Successfully managed staff expectations• Librarians’ knowledge is crucial
    37. 37. Beginning to bite...
    38. 38. nmnmmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnnmnmnmnmConsider all these titles as core readingTwo specialist journals is a minimumTwo [...] journals for a teaching hospital is adisgrace
    39. 39. Midpoint of 2012 Project Report back to hospital staff inJune 2012 Meet with stakeholders Leverage staff advocacy fortheir information needs to bemet Survey staff about their use ofthe published literature,discovery methods and theirexperience of the researchpublishing process
    40. 40. Stakeholder meetings• May– Pharmacy,– Health & Social Care Professions– Laboratory• June– Clinical Specialities– Nursing– Other
    41. 41. Why do they need thelibrary?• Clinical practice• For the care of a specific patient to answer aclinical query about their treatment• Guiding practice and keeping up to date• Provide teaching and internship to MSc &PhD students/trainees• CPD points for maintaining registration
    42. 42. Communication: stayingout front• Be available, start discussions, support yourdecisions with evidence, and listen andrecord what your users are telling you, andreflect it back to them• Raised the Library’s profile and credibilitywith clinicians: they value research and findprestige in being published, and presentingat conference• No drama, just calm building of evidence andpersistence in making the case
    43. 43. Our users are talkingwith us because weactively engaged withthem and continue to doso, and we are visibleand accessible.The alternative isclosure.
    44. 44. Hospital photographs by kind permission of Tommy Walsh, Clinical Photographer, Tallaght
    45. 45. Further readingCarey R, Elfstrand S, Hijleh R, An evidence-based approach for gaining faculty acceptance in aserials cancellation project, Collection Management, 2006, 30(2), 59-72.Gallagher J, Bauer K, Dollar D M, Evidence-based librarianship: utilizing data from all availablesources to make judicious print cancellation decisions, Library Collections, Acquisitions, andTechnical Services, 2005; 29, 169-179.Sinha R, Tucker C, Scherlen A, Finding the delicate balance: serials assessment at the Universityof Nevada, Las Vegas, Serials Review, 2005, 31(2),120-124Haley P, Analysis of print and electronic serials’ use statistics facilitates print cancellationdecisions, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 2006, 1, 57-59.Day A, A look at librarianship through the lens of an academic library serials review, In the librarywith the lead pipe [serial on the internet]. 2009, p.3 (accessed 18 October 2010). (http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2009/a-look-at-librarianship-through-the-lens-of-an-ac)Ward R K, Christensen J O, Spackman E, A systematic approach for evaluating and upgradingacademic science journal collections, Serials Review, 2005, 32(1), 4-16.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Murphy, A, An evidence-based approach to engaging healthcare users in a journal review project,Insights,2012, 25(1), 44–50, doi: 10.1629/2048-7754.25.1.44Murphy, A, An evidence-based approach to engaging healthcare users in a journal review project.Presentation at 35th UKSG Conference, Glasgow, 26th-28th March2012.http://river-valley.tv/an-evidence-based-approach-to-engaging-healthcare-users-in-a-journals-review