The application of valid information to the service providers will have an
increasingly
significant part to play in establishing 'best practice' parameters for
clinicians and
patients alike.
The terminology is perhaps historically under-representative of the
diversity of the role
and the importance that is and will be placed on the contribution of
'centres of information',
in the future health care provision.
The ability of clinicians to access appropriate information and communicate
with a team of
knowledgeable specialists who can direct to essential research of
publication and advise them
on the quality of the source and content is often appreciated by clinical
teams but rarely
acknowledged.
Having spent some time in both camps there is no doubt in my mind that there
is still along
way towards having timely iniformation placed into clinical decison making
for routine application
Patrick Keenan
-----Original Message-----
From: Evidence based practice to librarianship and information science
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Bayliss,
Sue
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 14:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: #A Discussion Question
After spending quite a few years as a librarian running a commercial
information service before coming over to "the other side" I have to say
there are still a lot of people who are only too swift to draw on the
so-called negative connotations of the word librarian - hence the tendency
to rename libraries as information units or services or even (cringe)
knowledge management units. I do agree with Nia that it is up to librarians
to overcome these inaccurate perceptions by the way we present ourselves and
the excellence of the services we provide. However there are so many other
types of information work (I am now an information specialist within an
academic unit serving users in PCTs) that maybe librarianship is too narrow
a term these days and evidence based information science for eg might be
more all-embracing?
Sue Bayliss
|