Dear All,
I have been asked to post the below-mentioned critique to LIS-Medical.
Bearing in mind that it is likely to be circulated anyway and I agree with
the calls for open discussion, I am posting it to the list (and ducking).
It is long, however, and I cannot send it as an attachment to this list. I
am copying and pasting it below my signature.
I am grateful to Barbara Cumbers for raising this topic on LIS-Medical.
Pam
Pam White, Library Services Manager
Thomas Sydenham Library
West Dorset General Hospitals NHS Trust
Williams Ave., Dorchester, DT1 2JY
(0)1305 255 764 <[log in to unmask]>
Comments on the TFPL report and draft NLH proposal
Submitted by Pam White
23 June 2004
General Comments
National leadership plays an important role in the development of library
services. Local libraries look to national leaders for guidance on trends
and technology, publicity regarding NHS initiatives, and advice on handling
challenges in the provision of library services. It does not follow that a
top-down system is necessarily the best structure for library services. An
over-centralised approach neglects to allow for libraries to respond to the
needs of our local users. The rationale for the TFPL's and NeLH's
centralised approach is not evidence-based.
Very little research is cited in the report and proposal. The small amount
of 'supporting' literature mentioned in the NeLH proposal lacks a complete
citation. The documents listed in Appendix 3 of the TFPL report are not
actually referenced within the report. The list of professionals consulted
in Appendix 2 is not enough evidence to make the report credible. No list
of questions asked or quantitative summary of responses is provided. Both
the report and proposal make broad, sweeping statements that do not appear
to be well thought out.
There seems to be no role in these documents for Trusts and PCTs, some of
whom have fine records of supporting and nurturing library provision. Their
local support should be welcomed and not shown to be an irrelevance.
TFPL Report
Some of the TFPL conclusions are valid: e.g., NHS libraries having to
coordinate efforts with 'a complicated mass of inter-related and overlapping
organisations.' However, the TFPL report wrongly concludes that this
duplication of organisations and initiatives makes library cooperation
impossible. The TFPL document implies that collection management is routine
and that library staff time would be better spent on promoting
evidence-based practice. The efforts of librarians in developing and
managing local collections to suit the needs of our users are essential and
valued by NHS staff. A heavy-handed approach to marketing evidence-based
practice, particularly without credibility-enhancing related duties, is
likely to backfire.
Content exploitation, recommended in 2.1 and in other parts of the report,
is a vague and weak remit. It is also difficult and demoralising to exploit
poorly designed content.
Who and how many are the 'many consulted' at the bottom of the last
paragraph on page 7? How many are not convinced that libraries should move
away from offering physical collections? This is not an evidence-based
rationale. There is no credibility attached to going faster than users want
or can keep up with. Libraries should be leading to use of e-resources, not
saying 'take it or leave it'. In 2001, a California Digital Library Task
Force concluded it is too soon to rely on e-books (EBook Task Force Final
Report. March 2001. http://www.cdlib.org/news/pdf/ebookfinalreport.pdf).
In any case, libraries would be wise to retain access to hard copy emergency
stock in case the Internet becomes unavailable. The 2001 terrorist attacks
in the United States raised very real concerns regarding reliance on the
Internet for medical information.
It is not clear in the first paragraph on page 8, who librarians should be
redirecting our services to and at whose expense. The emphasis on 'learning
and interaction' over a physical collection is not well supported.
On page 10, top section, 'change management planning' must be specific to
the NHS.
Section 4.3 (page 10) does not consider the importance of our local
collections and ILL services; nor does it compare the use of our local
collections and services to use of the National Core Content and other
nationally available services. The National Core Content is not yet stable
enough to reliably predict its long-term impact on the use of local library
resources and services.
Page 11 assumes the Strategic Health Authorities will support library
development. No back-up plan is offered for regions lacking in support from
their SHAs. What happens to library services in those areas? If library
staff will be based at hospitals, what role will Trusts have in determining
staff duties and how library facilities operate?
4.5 (page 12) is a nice thought, but no suggestions are offered as to how to
make this happen. The last 4.5 paragraph (page 13) advocates for
evidence-based librarianship. However, much of the recommendations in the
report lack solid evidence.
Page 18 - Content management is a different remit than content exploitation.
The potential role of librarians in content management is underemphasized in
this report in contrast to repeated references to content exploitation.
This is an area in which librarians, with our collection development
expertise, could be very helpful to the NHS.
NLH Proposal
The comparison of the corporate sector to medical libraries (section 1) is
weak. It is not clear that corporate sector relies on scholarly publishing
anywhere near to the extent that the healthcare community does. Nor is the
corporate sector necessarily as committed to educating future workers.
The recent survey mentioned in section 5 is not cited and difficult to
discuss in context. The NHS currently provides a service that is
value-added, compared to Google, because Google rankings of results reflect
financial power rather than quality/accuracy of information. Considering
the emphasis on evidence based practice in the NHS, a Google search is
unlikely to qualify as means of conducting a systematic review.
The real benefit of a centralized library service to users is not
identified. The argument seems to be more about cost-effectiveness at the
expense of local resources and services, and possibly access to quality
medical literature. NeLH needs to address the usability of its web site
before forcing the entire NHS to rely on its site in lieu of hard copy
materials. NeLH has not made clear how and if interlibrary loan requests
will be processed. If individual NHS libraries no longer have their own
collections, users will be forced to pay for loans from non-NHS libraries.
Over-reliance on a limited number of still functioning libraries could drive
up costs even further and availability would be badly compromised.
Will individual libraries still need to be accredited if we no longer house
collections? Some hospitals may decide not to maintain a physical library
if all information is electronic. The financial implications for local
libraries, including potential changes in staffing, have not been properly
addressed.
In the joint statement from the LKDN and NeLH, it is not clear how the
simplified funding models and equitable access will be developed. The fact
that NHS staff use the National Core Content does not mean they no longer
use other library resources.
The proposed transition toward unmediated services contradicts earlier
suggestions of library staff focusing on content exploitation.
Conclusion
The TFPL report and NeLH proposal do not provide enough evidence to warrant
the centralization of NHS library services. Both organisations tend to
generalize too much in their recommendations. Whilst the NHS itself has too
many overlapping organisations, physical libraries are still needed to serve
the local information needs of NHS staff. If the NHS would like to use
librarian's skills to the fullest, in a progressive way, it should consider
involving us in web site architecture and content management, rather than
limiting our duties to marketing and training.
|
