Dear all,
Time to put my head above the parapet! I've now read the article and the
comments so far. There is much I agree with, but also I have some
concerns - I'm afraid I'm a pessimist, as the list will have noted by
now! I welcome some more optimistic amendments to my comments!
>
>(Gil) It seems to me that this Informationist (why not Clinical
Information
>Scientist?) is exactly the same, in job scope, to the Information
>Scientist described. It is just that the academic discipline is
>different. I can see no problem with medical graduates following this
>job stream if that is their ambition.
>(Sara)The article also suggests that medical librarians need clinical
>training. This doesn't seem totally unreasonable as some background
>knowledge obviously helps a librarian to make the right decisions, look
>for the right information, and identify related information. I have
>certainly seen adverts for law librarians requiring a background in
law.
>However, the authors haven't said how much clinical training is needed,
>and to what level. They could mean anything from someone with science A
>levels and a grounding in medical terminology, to fully qualified
>doctors running libraries.
This all makes sense, Gil and Sara, and there are a few Librarians who
DO have a Health background/degree (as a former Speech and Language
Therapist, I am one of them!) HOWEVER, the salary would need to be on a
medical/clinical level, rather than a Library one, or no health
professional would consider the job! And there lies one funding problem.
Then, if the Clinical Librarian (which sounds a good title to me!) gets
that kind of salary, what about the Librarian who manages the Library?
Would the NHS cough up?!
>(Sara) It seems to me that the job described is mostly that of a good
>librarian. The authors seem to be saying that they want someone to find
>information, read it, assimilate it, and then advise the clinician.
It's
>a step further than we usually go, and I don't see why, time, staff and
>other resources allowing, a librarian couldn't fulfil that role.
Perhaps, Sara, but the time, resources etc,. are NOT available, are
they? We would need an ADDITIONAL post. Maybe that is the way forward -
additional posts (like the Clinical Librarians at Whipps Cross and
Barnet?)? I think that Librarians in NHS Libraries are currently trying
to be all things to all men, or Jack/Jill of all trades - depending on
how you look at it. Year on year, we get busier with ILLs, lending
books, etc. etc, and so we do not have the time to do this assimiliation
and appraisal. I have always been a bit concerned about Librarians doing
very much filtering of information for clinicians, simply because we are
NOT clinicians, and so we may be making wrong assumptions. However, my
concerns would lessen if some Librarians WERE clinicians.
>
>(Sara) The informationist (what an ugly Americanism!) is just another
kind of
>librarian. We're an ever evolving breed, keeping up with changes with
>changes in technology and changes in the various other professions
which
>we serve. Something we have always been good at is listening to our
>users. If this is what the medical profession want and feels it needs,
>we should at the very least be out there discussing it with them.
>(Mike) I agree with Sara: it's a development of the profession, not a
>substitute. Colleagues in South Thames will have heard me banging on
>about the importance of us becoming 'information colleagues' of the
>clinicians in the same way that the consultant in the next office is a
>'clinical colleague.' I felt quite encouraged by the article, not
>threatened. In Chichester the library is linked into the Clinical
>Effectiveness Support Unit of the acute trust, library staff are on the
>clinical guidelines committee, communications and R&D groups. I
>appointed a qualified nurse onto the staff several years ago to give us
>the clinical cred that the article recommends and, if it weren't for
>the students, we could probably close the library doors, abandon the
>traditional library activities and function happily as a clinical
>information service as the article describes.
I think the phrase 'if it weren't for the students' is a key one, Mike!
I would suggest this is not only undergraduate students, but also people
undergoing continuing education. These make up a major part of our
workload in this Integrated (Acute, Mental Health, Community) NHS Trust
Library in a DGH. This workload still grows each year. Mike seems to
have achieved a good situation, and all credit to him, but I wonder how
common it is in the NHS? I struggle to maintain our current level of
library service to 1,500+ members, with no funding from our Trust. Would
a Clinical Librarian would get them digging deep in their pockets for
additional funding?!
> (Mike)I think the key to it is to sell our information skills, rather
>than our library stock & services. This is similar to the way that
>other professions attract business on the basis of their personal skill
>and experience, e.g. solicitors, architects. Most of the research I've
>seen on where clinicians seek information says they go to people first
>(colleagues, specialists) before trying services. We need to be in the
>'people' list.
I fully agree that we need to sell ourselves, Mike, but maybe we need to
be able to sell both information skills AND library services.
> (Andrew) I heartily endorse Mike Roddham's comments (below). We see
this
>in all health sectors with consumer health, clinical librarians and
>peripatetic librarians.
>Commercial begins!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
List members may be interested that this is entirely the approach
that Graham Walton and I have adopted in the brand new Library
Association title:
Managing knowledge in health services. Walton & Booth eds.
Library Association, 2000.
If you are going to ICML look out for details of a book launch.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
>Commercial ends
>We and our contributors felt that traditional skills like cat and
class,
>though undoubtedly still of value particualrly in management of
>information resources should be placed in a subordinate position to
>more generic information skills such as filtering, appraising and
>orgaanising knowledge bases as well as wider skills such as
>marketing, political awareness, training and outreach. Readers can
>of course decide for themselves how much is aspiration and how
>much is the new environment of health care information
>management!
Visionary thinking, I agree, but what is the reality of the demand on
the ground? I think it has to be BOTH the expected library service AND
this more pro-active, clinical information work. And then, of course,
there will need to be new funding for the latter, at a time when the
former is not exactly overfunded.
Sorry if this seems all negative and money-oriented! I think the ideas
expressed in the paper are generally sensible, and agree there is a need
for funding the kind of post described. Librarians would be best placed
to fulfill this post, and I'm sure do in some cases, where staffing
allows them to, or their interests have led them in this direction.
Jim
--
Jim Moore
Goldberg Library
King George Hospital
Barley Lane,
GOODMAYES, Essex
IG3 8JB
Tel: 0181 970 8239
Fax: 0181 970 8237
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|