Top Rated Bangalore Call Girls Majestic ⟟ 9332606886 ⟟ Call Me For Genuine S...
Engaging users in a journals review project hslg e lib seminar may 2012
1. Engaging users in
a journals review
project
Anne Murphy BA DLIS MSc
Head Librarian
Tallaght Hospital
eLibrary Management Workshop,
HSLG, 10th
March 2012
13. Baseline of 300 Journals in 2009
14
73
31
83
99
Retained
Cancelled in 2010
Cancelled in 2011
15%cut in 2012
31%cut in 2012
Total of 201 cancelled titles in 3
14. So. How come our
users are still
speaking to us?
15.
16. Literature Search
• Budget reductions are a primary driver for
libraries in undertaking a journals review.
• Cancellations can damage the relationship
between users and their library if
communication is poorly or incompletely
executed.
• Libraries are keen to include users in the
reviews to safeguard good working
relationships with users and ensure the
relevance of collections
17. The Journal Review
Project
Meet the budget target
Protect good relationship with staff
Retain the most relevant, valued and used
journals
18. Communication
Strategy
• Open a dialogue with our users
• Use the Project to market the Library
• Target group: doctors, senior clinical
staff and managers, and the
Management Team
• Key message: You have a great Library
• Channels: Paper, email, website, face to
face
21. Conduct the user
evaluations
Rating scale:
1. Essential
2. Cancel only if
necessary
3. May be cancelled
4. Cancel
• Identify the survey group
• Survey method: paper or online
• Decide what titles asking to evaluate
24. Respondents in 2011
36% response rate
Medical
47%
Nursing
17%
Allied Health
29%
Other professionals
2%
Management
5%
Response rates:
100% Rheumatology
12% Surgery
25. User evaluations 2012
Leaner and cleaner
Increased the number
surveyed to 550 and
decreased the number of
customised forms to 31
30. Decision-making
criteria
• Principles
– departments would have equitable coverage
– The most used and most valued would be
retained
• 2011 - 1 title per dept to cut
• 2012
– 15%: 2 journals per department to keep
– 31%: 4 core titles and aimed to retain 1 journal
per department
40. Midpoint of 2012 Project
Report back to hospital staff in
June 2012
Meet with stakeholders
Leverage staff advocacy for
their information needs to be
met
Survey staff about their use of
the published literature,
discovery methods and their
experience of the research
publishing process
41. Stakeholder meetings
• May
– Pharmacy,
– Health & Social Care Professions
– Laboratory
• June
– Clinical Specialities
– Nursing
– Other
42. Why do they need the
library?
• Clinical practice
• For the care of a specific patient to answer a
clinical 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
43. Communication: staying
out front• Be available, start discussions, support your
decisions with evidence, and listen and
record what your users are telling you, and
reflect it back to them
• Raised the Library’s profile and credibility
with clinicians: they value research and find
prestige in being published, and presenting
at conference
• No drama, just calm building of evidence and
persistence in making the case
44. Our users are talking
with us because we
actively engaged with
them and continue to do
so, and we are visible
and accessible.
The alternative is
closure.
46. Further reading
Carey R, Elfstrand S, Hijleh R, An evidence-based approach for gaining faculty acceptance in a
serials cancellation project, Collection Management, 2006, 30(2), 59-72.
Gallagher J, Bauer K, Dollar D M, Evidence-based librarianship: utilizing data from all available
sources to make judicious print cancellation decisions, Library Collections, Acquisitions, and
Technical Services, 2005; 29, 169-179.
Sinha R, Tucker C, Scherlen A, Finding the delicate balance: serials assessment at the University
of Nevada, Las Vegas, Serials Review, 2005, 31(2),120-124
Haley P, Analysis of print and electronic serials’ use statistics facilitates print cancellation
decisions, 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 library
with 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 upgrading
academic 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: 10.1629/2048-7754.25.1.44
Murphy, 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