The transcript of last night’s chat on public library-health library partnership is up at
Thanks to everyone who contributed, and to Holly Case for leading the discussion. if there’s a topic you’d like discussed at a future format, get in touch, by e-mail or on Twitter. And if you’d like to lead a session, get in touch. It’s an experience, as those who have already led one will tell you.
Knowledge for healthcare: a development framework (KfH) clearly states the importance of working closely with our colleagues in public libraries. Many of us have already been doing this for a number of years, especially as so many public library services also work in health promotion, but what will this relationship look like going forward? How can we go about creating an effective and mutually beneficial partnership? Are there examples of work already in progress out there? Join us on Tuesday 18th August at 8pm for our next discussion on the partnership between health libraries and public libraries, led by Holly Case.
We’ll ask everyone to tweet a brief introduction and then we’ll structure the discussion around the following questions; they’re not set in stone, so please feel free to raise anything else you wish to discuss. We are hoping that our public libraries colleagues will also join in, it will be interesting to see the relationship from the other side.
Q1. Are you currently working with your local public library? If yes, then how and if not, what barriers are stopping you?
Q2. Do you think that KfH will help solidify the relationships between public libraries and NHS libraries?
Q3. KfH mentions the importance of partnerships in offering “coordinated information to patients and the public”. Do you think our public libraries colleagues will be able to support us in that?
Q4. In 2014 The Society of Chief Librarians and Reading Agency put forward the Public Libraries Universal Health Offer, how can we use our knowledge of the NHS and health information to support them?
Q5. Have you got any tips for joint working?
- Project suggestions?
- Any barriers? How did you overcome them?
Chats are archived on Symplur
Thanks to everyone who participated in our Twitter journal club on Tuesday. If you missed it, or you want to relive some of the more exciting moments, Symplur host a transcript, as they do for every chat, with added analytics.
Our next chat will be at 8 pm on Tuesday 18 August, when Holly Case will lead a discussion on public library and NHS library partnerships. Holly is very well qualified for this, as she moved into health libraries recently, after working for Surrey County Council’s library service. It’s topical too, as Health Education England’s Knowledge for Healthcare: A Development Framework stresses the importance of partnerships to support public and patient information, while CILIP’s Public and Mobile Libraries Group is to hold its annual conference in October on a health and wellbeing theme.
Tonight we’re going to try a journal club, and we’re discussing this paper:
Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham TJ. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jun;68(6):617-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025. Epub 2015 Feb 7
We’ll start with introductions. Please tweet something to tell us who and where you are. The session will be lead by Tom Roper, who’ll tweet as @ukmedlibs, and give a summary of the paper for those who haven’t been able to get hold of full text, or who didn’t have time to read it. If you want to see a presentation Tom gave on this paper to the Brighton and Sussex NHS Library and Knowledge Service’s Journal Club last week, it’s on SlideShare.
Then we’ll tackle the following questions. Please tag your contributions with the number of the question you’re responding to, e.g. Q1 as well as, of course, with the #ukmedlibs hashtag.
Q1. How valid is the study’s methodology?
Q2. How reliable are the study’s conclusions?
Q3. How applicable are the results to our practice?
Q4. The study is about Systematic Review (SR) searches. How applicable to searches of other types is the conclusion? How much of our search workload comprises searches to support SRs?
Q5 How can we persuade authors and editors to change their policies?
Q6 How can we contribute to further research on methods for the assessment of published search strategies?
As ever, a transcript of the chat will be made available after the event.
For the July #ukmedlibs chat, we’re going to try a Twitter journal club. The chat will take place at 8pm on Tuesday 21 July and the paper to be discussed is this:
Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham TJ.
Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general
internal medicine systematic reviews.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jun;68(6):617-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025
We know not everyone will have access to this as, sadly, the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology is not part of the national bundle (though it really ought to be, hint, hint, and while we’re about it, how about Research Synthesis Methods as well). However it is available through most ScienceDirect or ClinicalKey bundles, or you could ask your LKS’s document supply wizards to find you a copy.
We’ll post questions for consideration here before the chat. See you on 21 July!
…appears to be in good hands as we talked about what we’d like to see and how to get there. For instance, @Davelaw22 said that he’d like to see “a dynamic service that drives innovation, research, and high quality care. It should always be around our patients”, while @clepping1 said that we need “flexible staff as well as flexible space”, which tallied neatly with @goswamilouise when she said “LKS staff embedded in teams with staff & students able to access resources they need on any device. Flexible space, wider roles.”; and finally, @Katenewell09 had a slogan (that was admittedly pinched!) that said “space to think, knowledge to act”.
If you could not take part in the chat session, you can see a transcript on Symplur.
We are always looking for themes and topics for our chats, so do let us know if you have something that you’d like to see discussed by fellow librarians, please leave a comment below or drop us a line on email@example.com
is on Tuesday 16th June at 8pm and the topic will be….
‘the future of healthcare libraries’
which I think follows on quite nicely from last months rather ambitious start to the #UKMedLibs chat when we opted to discuss the Knowledge for Healthcare framework (For those of you that still haven’t clapped eyes on the framework it is here: http://bit.ly/1Nlim4n).
There are a few resources out there that will quite likely get you thinking about the future of healthcare libraries, but I’ve come across these two:
Creating the future – an editorial from the Journal of the Medical Library Association – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3878931/
The evolving role and value of libraries and librarians in healthcare – from JAMA – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24065006
but…what you really want to know is what questions are we going to be asking, so without further ado here is the initial list:
- How do you think library space will change in future?
- Do you see the librarian’s role continuing to evolve and how?
- Funding streams are in constant flux: how should they develop?
- Will we truly be electronic only with no print resources?
- What is your ideal future NHS library?
- Is the Knowlege for Healthcare framework truly the way forward? (Possibly controversial!!)
So you have any questions that you would to suggest? (The list will be finalised on the 16th if it changes hugely.)
While you’re here, we’d like to know what topics you’d like to discuss in future chats – please leave a comment below, or tweet to @ukmedlibs, or send us an email at firstname.lastname@example.org
if you’re still here and quite fancy volunteering to run a twitter chat or two, just let us know!