Hello all,
For the Journal Club portion of our Research Workteam meeting next month, we'll be looking at the following article (please see the link below):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2010.00925.x/abstract
Brettle, A., Maden-Kenkins, M., Anderson, L., McNally, Ro., Pratchett, T., Tancock, J., Thornton, D., & Webb, A. (2010). Evaluating clinical librarian services: A systematic review. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 28, 3-22.
As a starting point for discussion, I've included some possible questions below:
1. How can we (as librarians working with clinicians/researchers involved in patient care) evaluate the services we provide (i.e. a mixed-methods approach or use of the Critical Incident Technique-impact and providing information at the point of need is key)
2. How do we measure whether the service we (as librarians) provide to our clinicians is effective? (process, outcome, impact) (we send out surveys after an instruction session, we follow-up with the literature searches we do, but do we know HOW the material we provide or instruct on is actually used? (consider the arguments raised on pg. 4- related research)
3. What about the patients? How are they impacted based on the level of service we provide to the clinician? (see the comment on pg. 4 re: “no study to date has attempted to measure the direct or indirect impact of CML services in outcomes of patient care.”
4. When we ask clients to evaluate our service, are we considering intent vs. actual impact when creating our survey questions? (see the discussion on pg. 14)
Mention is made in the article of the Critical Incident Technique. I found a brief paper on this from Knowledge Solutions, and am thus including the link to this below as well:
http://www.adb.org/documents/information/knowledge-solutions/the-critical-incident-technique.pdf
Thank you and happy reading,
Marcus
No comments:
Post a Comment