The survey findings showed a need to provide self-service options for members and staff to carry out their own searches as well as the option of mediated research for those struggling to find relevant resources.
(Lisa) was carried out. This produced some encouraging articles on the value of a mediated service and how a liter- ature search service can complement information literacy services.1, 2
“Both
services are valued by users who see them as complementary methods of obtaining information.”3
Benchmarking the service How do librarians define a quality liter- ature search service? We needed to find out find out how our service compared with other similar healthcare organisa- tions.
To answer these questions and benchmark our service, a Jisc online survey was set up to which 26 librarians responded. We also visit- ed or interviewed colleagues from 10 healthcare libraries and informally approached members of the South London Literature Searching Group. It was reassuring to find that our literature search service was compa- rable with other healthcare libraries. Most offered a free service to users and provided a service to full members only, with advice and guidance provided for student members. Our current service demonstrated many of the quality features identified, including relevancy of results and timeliness of response. Most libraries surveyed offered lists of references as our current service does; however 48 per cent additionally offered scoping reviews and 28 per cent offered
December-January 2017/18
systematic reviews. These more extensive services are areas we will consider offering in the future.
Future direction of the RCN RCN policies were examined to ensure the service was meeting the aims and direction of the organisation. The literature search service supports the strong focus on evi- dence-based practice recognised as essen- tial for the nursing profession, as identified in the RCN’s Strategic Plan 2013-18. It also assists with the promotion of self-service as prioritised by RCN Council.
Discovering our users’ views We held a focus group and carried out telephone interviews with staff and mem- bers, and analysed the SmartSurvey online questionnaire which is sent out with search results.
Focus group and interviews RCN research colleagues provided invalu- able insight into undertaking focus groups and advised against a members’ focus group as, unlike a university, we lack a “captive audience”. It was decided therefore to concentrate on telephone interviews and all members who had received searches between May and July 2016 were invited to a phone interview. The response rate was low but still provided a useful insight into how our members view the service. Colleagues from organisational devel- opment provided advice on composing questions, facilitation and scribing for the
staff focus group. We contacted staff who had used our service in the last 18 months. Twelve staff attended the focus group and a subsequent eight agreed to be interviewed. A range of staff took part including those from our nursing and legal departments, as well as staff who work in our regions. Staff outlined their own experiences of the service and suggested ways to improve the offer.
SmartSurvey analysis
The analysis of our SmartSurvey for the last 18 months provided 70 responses and useful quantitative data on satisfaction rates, pur- pose of request, and intended use of results. It also provided comments on the service: “This service is very much appreciated to a busy clinician, and I want to thank you for supporting front-line nurses.”
What did we discover?
The survey analysis showed that our current service is popular with users: “A complicated and specialised topic so am very grateful for your input.” Over 80 per cent of users were completely or very satisfied with their results. There were also many repeat users with 22 per cent of respondents indicating they had used us before. We did discover that the use of the service was geographically uneven; and staff and members commented on the lack of promotion of the service and recommended it be better publicised. Staff indicated that additional services such as current awareness would be useful. The findings showed a need to provide and promote self-service options for those mem-
INFORMATION PROFESSIONAL 49
RCN Literature Search Key
pp48-50.indd 5
07/12/2017 13:23
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
