The Many Faces of Embedded Librarianship: How do we Evaluate Effectiveness?
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•358 views
Objective: The health sciences library of a comprehensive research university implemented embedded librarianship two years ago by placing librarians in the adult and children’s hospitals, in four colleges and on a partnership campus. The embedded librarians have spent the past year reviewing practices and working to create an evaluation tool to assess effectiveness. Methods: Embedded librarianship has been implemented in the Colleges of Allied Health Sciences, Dental Medicine, Nursing and Medicine as well as the Health System, and a satellite campus. Each librarian’s embedded model is different and based on the approach of the individual librarian and the needs of the areas served. Embedded librarians created a survey to measure the extent of embedded practices in other health science and hospital libraries. Librarians wanted to create a tool which would help evaluate our program with vastly different models from one are to the next and which could also help other institutions do the same. Results: A preliminary survey was distributed to health science librarians in early 2014 after IRB approval was obtained. Survey information was used to gauge interest in the need for a tool to evaluate embedded practices and form the basis of what evaluation has already been done in other programs. The survey showed a great deal of interest in embedding librarians and the need for a comprehensive way to evaluate program effectiveness. Librarians then worked to build an embedded program evaluation toolkit based on academic health science institutions. Conclusion: The toolkit consists of various parts with can be used in combinations that fit the embedded program being evaluated. The evaluation toolkit was created to fit with academic health science institutions and will be piloted in the Fall of 2014. Later expansion of the toolkit may include hospital specific measures, which will require partnership with hospital librarians.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to The Many Faces of Embedded Librarianship: How do we Evaluate Effectiveness?
Similar to The Many Faces of Embedded Librarianship: How do we Evaluate Effectiveness? (20)
More from Kim Mears
More from Kim Mears (8)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The Many Faces of Embedded Librarianship: How do we Evaluate Effectiveness?
- 1. The Many Faces of Embedded Librarianship: How do we Evaluate Effectiveness? Lindsay Blake, MLIS, AHIP Darra Ballance, MLIS, AHIP Maryska Connolly-Brown, MLIS Kathy Davies, MLS Julie K. Gaines, MLIS, AHIP Kim Mears, MLIS, AHIP Peter Shipman, MLIS
- 2. Objectives • Project Overview • Survey of Embedded Librarians • Creating a tool for embedded program evaluation • Where are going now?
- 3. Project Overview • Phase One – Review the literature on embedded librarians in universities, focusing on health sciences – Survey librarians for information on embedded librarianship including any current evaluations • Phase Two – Create an assessment instrument to evaluate embedded programs – Validate and pilot the evaluation instrument
- 4. Timeline Date Task Responsible Party August 2013 Completion of literature review Darra Ballance and Julie Gaines September – November 2013 Creation of the survey on Embedded Librarians Lindsay, Kim, Kathy, Peter, Maryska, Darra and Julie November – December 2013 Distribution to of the survey to listservs Lindsay Blake January 2014 Compilation and analysis of survey results Lindsay, Kim, Kathy, Peter, Maryska, Darra and Julie February – May 2014 Creation of evaluation instrument for embedded programs Lindsay, Kim, Kathy, Peter, Maryska, Darra and Julie June- August 2014 Validation of evaluation instrument Lindsay, Kim, Kathy, Peter, Maryska, Darra and Julie August – September 2014 Piloting of instrument Lindsay, Kim, Kathy, Peter, Maryska, Darra and Julie October 2014 Reporting of results Lindsay, Kim, Kathy, Peter, Maryska, Darra and Julie
- 5. Survey of Embedded Librarians • Based on your professional responsibilities, do you consider yourself to be an embedded librarian? Embedded Librarian: "Embedded Librarianship is a distinctive innovation that moves the librarians out of the library...forming a strong working relationship between the librarian and a group or team of people who need the librarian's information expertise." (Shumaker, 2012) 72% 28% Yes No
- 6. Demographics 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21+ Numberoflibrarians Years Years as Librarian Years Embedded 29% 11% 21%3% 27% 9% Academic Medical Center Healthcare System Academic Medical Center and Healthcare System Specialized Hospital or Clinic University or College
- 7. Where are you Embedded? 9 70 61 16 52 32 Dentistry Medicine Nursing Pharmacy Hospital or Clinic Allied Health Sciences 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
- 9. Where do you spend most of your time? Faculty Student Medical Student 1st or 2nd year Medical Student 3rd or 4th year Medical Resident Researcher
- 10. Embedded Activities 156 146 101 162 94 84 30 30 28 84 67 43 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Teaching Basic Search Skills Teaching Advanced Search Skills Assisting Students Performing Complex Searches Partnering with Faculty on… Co-Teaching with Faculty Co-locating in a Dept Attending Morning Report Attending Morning Rounds Curriculum Development College Committees Other
- 11. Evaluations of Embedded Programs 0 10 20 30 40 50 Student or Professional Role Services or Information Products Used Quality of Library Service Changes in Information Seeking Behavior Impact of Library Service on Decision… Impact of Library Service in Research… Impact for Future Work Desired Access to Future Services or… Other
- 12. Evaluation Methods 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Saved Email Correspondance Written Details of Experience Informal Collection of Experiences Hard Copy Tally Software Tracking of Contacts Student Performance Student Exam Questions Evaluation within CMS Pretest/Posttest Questionnaire or Survey Focus Groups Other
- 13. Creating an Evaluation Tool • Bi-monthly meetings – Began with discussions of what we wanted out of this instrument – Formed overarching Goal and objectives • Areas of focus: – Survey instrument – ease of use, familiarity – Use information already collected in the library • Low hanging fruit – Create a evaluations toolbox • Student, faculty, clinician survey & library data
- 14. Lessons Learned • Discussion is good, but you need to start with a Goal and objectives. • Look for low hanging fruit – what are you already doing that can be used? • Validation has many facets – use as many as you can – internal consistency is one • Have others look at your survey, evaluation instrument, test, etc.
- 15. Future Directions • Finish creation of evaluation tool in survey format • Create focus groups to review survey – Students, faculty, clinicians, across campus • Send survey to experts for validation purposes – Evaluation, librarian, embedded librarian • Pilot evaluation at Georgia Regents University • Expand to national evaluation
- 16. Questions? • Picture of us
Editor's Notes
- The survey went out in the Spring of 2014 consisted of 13 questions The survey was distributed to national, regional, chapter and section listservs. A total of 311 survey responses were received – about 223 of these said they were embedded librarians
- Under Other some responses included: Public Health, PhD programs, clinical research staff, multi, corporate, government, medical informatics Medicine Departments included: internal medicine, emergency medicine, pediatrics, family Medicine, OB/GYN –Dentistry - 4.62% –Medicine - 35.90% –Nursing - 31.28% –Pharmacy - 8.21% –Hospital or Clinical Setting - 26.67% –Allied Health Sciences or Health Professions - 16.41% *Other, please list - 52.82%
- Nursing was included frequently in Other, also research staff and pharmacy These questions gave us some thought since we had thought to create a quick survey and had not done focus groups to help us to validate it beforehand We thought nurses and pharmacy would fit under clinicians, but this was frequently not the case. Faculty - 70.56% –Student - 46.19% –1st or 2nd year Medical School Students - 13.71% –3rd or 4th year Medical School Students - 20.30% –Medical Resident - 29.95% –Researchers - 47.21% –Clinicians - 52.79%
- Assisting students with presentations/research proposals
- About 67% of programs had not done some sort of evaluation – formal or informal Of these 83% had done between 1-5 evaluations in the past three years So about 1/6th of our original respondents are conducting evaluations or about 55/311
- Survey results were analyzed and work started on an evaluation tool Goal of Evaluation: Measure the effectiveness of Embedded Librarian services. Embedded Librarian Grant - Objectives Identify the amount of time librarians spend in embedded areas. Examine the quality of time librarians spend in embedded areas. Determine if faculty, students and clinicians are aware of the embedded program. Find out if faculty, students and clinicians know the Embedded Librarian for their college/area. Determine if faculty, students and clinicians are using of the range of services provided by Embedded Librarians. Determine which services are most heavily used. Evaluate faculty, student and clinician level of satisfaction with the overall embedded program. Determine if librarians spend a sufficient amount of time in embedded area. Determine if faculty, students, and clinicians find value in Embedded Librarian services. Identify the how frequently faculty, students, and clinicians use embedded services. Identify methods used to contact Embedded Librarians Determine if faculty, students and clinicians feel that Embedded Librarians are an asset to their college, dept, or institute/center.