Engaging users in a journals review project

1. Engaging users in a journals review project Anne Murphy BA DLIS MSc Head Librarian Tallaght Hospital eLibrary Management Workshop, HSLG, 10th March 2012

2. Tallaght Hospital, Dublin Provide tertiary service to 400,000 people in 3 counties National referral centre for some clinical specialities

3. Tallaght Hospital Library Library website: Evidence & reference databases 300 journals in 2009 12,000 books

4. 25% 2011 7% Hospital average

5. TOTAL 73 titles cancelled in 2011

6.  2012 15%

7. TOTAL 31 titles cancelled in 2012

8. Number of journal subscriptions

9. Baseline of 300 journals in 2009 Total of 118 cancelled titles in 3 years

10. Not so fast... 31%

11. TOTAL 31 + 83 Journals cut in 2012

12. Number of journals 2012

13. Baseline of 300 Journals in 2009 Total of 201 cancelled titles in 3 years

14. So. How come our users are still speaking to us?

16. 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 Literature Search

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

19. Informed Decisions Build datasets of metrics and evaluations

20. Identify the journals For review 82% 286 journals in total 236 for review

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

22. User evaluation survey form Columns: Journal title Rating scale Department Format of journal Subscription status

23. A completed survey form

24. Respondents in 2011 Other professionals 2% Management 5% Medical 47% Allied Health 29% Nursing 17% Response rates: 100% Rheumatology 12% Surgery 36% response rate

25. Leaner and cleaner User evaluations 2012 Increased the number surveyed to 550 and decreased the number of customised forms to 31

26. Respondentsin 2012 Management 7% Other Professionals 4% Allied Health 29% Medical 41% Nursing 19% 34% response rate

27. Compile the user evaluations Columns: Journal Decision Department 4 sets of columns, 1 per rating: number & percentage Check column Total population of respondents

28. Compile the journal metrics Cost Usage Cost per use

29. The decision-making process in 

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

31. Round 1 – Identify definite keepers 30 titles

32. Round 2: two thresholds Cost > €2,000 OR < 1O uses 44journals tagged for probable cancellation 9 journals identified for purchase

33. Round 3 55 journals identified for cancellation Departmental / Specialitytitles

34. Round 4 18 journals identified for cancellation Departmental / Specialitytitles

35. Communicate the results Key Message: Use the journals

36. Feedback in 2011 “This is very interesting...”

37. The decision-making process proved successful Successfully managed staff expectations Librarians’ knowledge is crucial Post-operative Review 2011

38. Beginning to bite...

39. nmnmmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnnmnmnmnm Consider all these titles as core reading Two specialist journals is a minimum Two [...] journals for a teaching hospital is a disgrace

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 researchpublishing 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.

45. Hospital photographs by kind permission of Tommy Walsh, Clinical Photographer, Tallaght Hospital

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-academic-library-serials-review/ ) 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-project/