Search

The research goals were to obtain an understanding of who the users of e‐books in the NHS are, what they are using e‐books for, and when and how they use them. This article presents the methodology used and the findings from the research. It also explores the outputs and next steps from the research, both for the individual countries and collectively. The Five Nations group, (library leads in England, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Scotland and Wales) commissioned research into healthcare staff use and non‐use of e‐books to understand the behaviours, needs and expectations of healthcare staff and to identify shared challenges around e‐books to inform policy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

National Health Service (NHS) knowledge and library services in England are integrating digital advances into their systems and services. Health Education England (HEE) leads on the development of NHS library services. A key workstream focuses on (1) improving the infrastructure to enable discovery and management of digital knowledge resources; (2) collaborating with local teams to establish regional library management systems that are integrated with the new national discovery service for healthcare staff and learners. This article explores initiatives on resource discovery as well as the need for system‐wide partnership working to ensure that biomedical knowledge in computable form is findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable. Low levels of health and digital literacy pose a significant barrier to using health information and accessing health services. A range of interventions are aimed at enhancing citizens' digital and health literacy skills. The education and life‐long learning needs of the knowledge and library services workforce are considered. Working with CILIP and higher education institutions, HEE delivers a range of educational offers through its Learning Academy. As Artificial Intelligence and automation are implemented in health systems, knowledge and library staff form a crucial bridge between technology and those who use it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Responding to the COVID‐19 pandemic, Health Education England (HEE) mobilised a group of expert searchers from NHS libraries in England to develop a platform for librarians to share peer reviewed search strategies and results on the Knowledge for Healthcare website. Objectives: (1) To document the origins of the COVID‐19 search bank, (2) evaluate attitudes of NHS librarians in England towards the search bank and (3) identify lessons learned and consider whether the initiative might be developed further. Methods: Structured interviews with the peer reviewers (n = 10) were conducted, and a questionnaire survey of the NHS library community using the search bank was undertaken. Results: The interviews confirmed the value of collaboration. Expert searchers worked in pairs to peer review submitted search strategies. The survey (85 responses) indicated that a majority had used the search bank, and approved of the project, with some differences of opinion on functionality and future developments. Discussion: Collaborative working for the search bank probably saved time for individual NHS librarians. The quality of the searches submitted was variable as were librarians' approaches to presentation and development of search strategies. Peer review benefits from a buddy approach among expert searchers and agreement about feedback provided to contributors. Conclusion: Search strategies are the most useful element of a search bank. Peer review can be challenging and would benefit from a formal structure, but it is professionally rewarding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Indications on the development of the health library and knowledge workforce (LKS) in England suggest that more staff may need to shift into clinical librarian (CL) roles. Anecdotal evidence suggested that CL roles have changed recently. Objectives: To examine perceptions of CL tasks and required personal characteristics of CLs, amongst both practising CLs and other LKS staff in England. Methods: An online survey was followed by descriptive statistical and content analysis to identify any differences in perceptions between the CL and non‐CL staff groups. Results: Response rate: 10% (123/1181). Both staff groups identified literature searching as the top core task and agreed on the main CL roles. Perceptions on the necessary personal characteristics were also similar. Ranking differed for a few tasks: non‐CL staff may ascribe more importance to some tasks (evidence synthesis, critical appraisal training and attending ward rounds/team meetings) than the CL staff state. CLs spent more time on staff management, and less time on study skills training than non‐CL staff perceived. Discussion: Results indicated that CL roles are continuing to develop, but that CLs are more integrated into library administration than some non‐CL staff believe. Conclusion: Shared perceptions around CL roles should help workforce development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]