|
|
In message <00ac01be5205$0ff6cfe0$1a0d1fd1@oemcomputer>, Peg Allen
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>This is something where you should be working with your health services
>librarians. Technology provides optons for timely delivery of full-text,
>but getting the job done requires sufficient professional and clerical
>staff. Should health professionals spend their time photocopying and or
>scanning to Fax when a fully staffed library could offer this service?
>Librarians sound self-serving when they lobby for appropriate funding - we
>need your support!
>
I'm with you there! But it's a chicken and egg thing. Clinicians can't
usually obtain this service so they get disheartened when they try to
practice EBP (that is if they're one of the minority that does try). So
there's no demand partly because there's no supply. But if libraries
were to be given funding to run this kind of service on a wide scale
there might be very slow uptake in the first year or two and I can just
imagine funding bodies saying after 18 months "we're not getting value
for money, since only 3 doctors in the area use the service!"
Maybe someone should run an RCT - give a bunch of clinicians teaching in
EBP then randomise them into a group with and without full off-site
library services, then compare their EBP activities.
Another idea - how about pairing up individual librarians with clinical
units so that they become part of the team and would get to know the
strengths and weaknesses and needs of the team? They'd be able to offer
more than just a paper retrieval service - they'd become involved in the
units' development of its EBP skills.
Toby
--
Toby Lipman 7, Collingwood Terrace, Jesmond, Newcastle upon Tyne. Tel
0191-2811060 (home), 0191-2437000 (surgery)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
|
|
|