Hi,

Just caught up on the thread of this.  We were CHI'd last
year and the Trust sensibly involved us in all the
preparatory work - although the Review team did not walk in
to the library.

If librarians not part of this then we will disappear in
the 'Information just means IT' argument and then
presumably disappear altogether.   CHI is so important to
Trusts that in order to be recognised as central to Trust
activities, we have to be part of it.  Otherwise we might
as well pack up now....

Interestingly, a bad comment from CHI can be a good thing -
it would show that they find our work to be important and
can ultimately provide the lead for increased funding.
Just ask the Trusts who had rotten reviews of their IT
where they will be spending their money this year.

I feel we need to do some serious lobbying.     To be
relieved when your library doesn't receive a visit from CHI
smacks of the worst type of complacency.

John


On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 12:08:08 +0100 "Stock Sara (RDE) Essex
Rivers" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> We are preparing to be CHI-ed this summer. The trust's Modernisation Manager
> (who is preparing us for the review) here came round with a very short tick
> list of things (mostly journal titles we are supposed to have), and wasn't
> too interested in what else might be going on. But I sent him a copy of
> Dorothy's splendid paper on CHI reviews in libraries and highlighted the
> bits about internet access for all being looked on as a *good thing* and
> suggested to him that this is something we could be moving towards in time
> for CHI. I also outlined things we do in areas that were mentioned in
> Dorothy's report as attracting brownie points. He has replied saying that I
> have valid points and he will take them forward. I'm hoping that CHI will be
> a useful lever for nudging some issues that affect libraries in the right
> direction! (If you can nudge with a lever and I'm not mixing metaphors...)
>
> The question is, to respond to Mike's point, do we accept that they don't
> really care about libraries and heave a sigh of relief that we aren't going
> to be under investigation ourselves, or do we somehow approach CHI, explain
> how our role can reduce risk, improve standards etc, and lobby for them to
> be a bit more thoughtful in what's on their library tick list?
>
> Either way, I found Dorothy's original report really useful, would be
> pleased to see an updated version, and would be happy to share my experience
> of being CHI-ed.
>
>
>
>
> Sara Stock
>
> Library Services Manager
> Colchester General Hospital
> Turner Road
> Colchester
> CO4 5HJ
> T: (01206) 742146
> F: (01206) 742107
> E:[log in to unmask]
> W: www.essexrivers.nhs.uk/library
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Husband, Dorothy [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 17 April 2002 11:21
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [LIS-MEDICAL] CHI clinical governance reviews.... library comments
>
>
>
> Hello
> I'm still looking at CHI reviews for the individual trusts as they come out.
> It seems to me that the themes which were published on the HLG website in
> the autumn last year, then in the HLG newsletter, are still coming out in
> the reports, though the particular topics covered, and the depth of that
> coverage, seem to vary greatly between trust.  Important areas which tend to
> be looked at are still Internet/intranet access to information, library
> opening hours, training available and staff helpfulness.
>
> I was wondering if it would be valuable to try to bring together people's
> experience several months on - has a CHI report caused change (positive or
> negative) in organisations, were the reviewers accurate in what they said,
> and would those who have experienced a review and an action plan wish to
> pass on the benefits of that experience to others?
>
> It might be that someone knows of another way in which this information is
> being put together.  If so, I'd like to hear about it, as the alternative
> might be that I volunteer to collate experience for future publication,
> perhaps in another HLG newsletter.
>
> Dorothy
>
> PS Our review for Peterborough is due to be published at the end of this
> month.  I will soon have more personal experience.
>
> Dorothy Husband
> Library Information Services Manager
> Laxton Library
> Postgraduate Medical Education Centre
> Peterborough District Hospital
> Thorpe Road
> Peterborough
> PE3 6DA
> 01733 874662
> Fax 01733 347142
>
> "Unless expressly stated otherwise, the contents of this message represent
> only the views of the sender as expressed only to the intended recipient, do
> not commit Peterborough Hospitals Trust (PHT) to any course of action and
> are not intended to impose any legal obligation upon PHT."
>
>
>
> **********************************************************************************
> Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust does not enter into contractual negotiations, contracts or any other form of legally binding agreement via e-mail. Therefore this message does not constitute any form of contractual offer or acceptance. Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust does not assume or accept any legal responsibility for the contents of this message save where it is sent by one of it's employees in the course of his or her employment.
> This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is private and confidential.
> If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication and it's attachment is strictly prohibited.
> If you have received this communication and it's attachments in error, please return the original message and attachments to us using the reply facility on e-mail.
> Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust periodically and automatically monitors e-mails to ensure appropriate and lawful use is made of them. The contents of this message may therefore be subject to monitoring.
>
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by Sophos for the presence of computer viruses.
> **********************************************************************************

----------------------
John Blenkinsopp
[log in to unmask]