Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Under Pressure: Making the Case for Hospital Libraries Rebecca Bayrer, MLIS Suzanne Beattie, MLIS Elizabeth Lucas, MLIS, AHIP Dawn Melberg, MLIS Eve Melton, MLIS, AHIP Kaiser Permanente, Northern California Project Timeline Summer 2009 Peer Group Meeting •Query •Brainstorming •Committee Formation Fall 2009 Committee Meetings •Development of value categories •Survey questions 2010 Pilot Surveys Spring 2011 Survey becomes standard practice throughout KP NCAL libraries Literature Support • Performed literature review to identify best practices • Key article: Abels EG, Cogdill KW, Zach L. Identifying and communicating the contributions of library and information services in hospitals and academic health sciences centers. J Med Libr Assoc 2004 Jan;92(1):46-55. Value Category Concept • Emerges from objective to align KP Libraries’ mission and goals more closely to Kaiser Permanente’s mission and goals • Kaiser Permanente's Mission “Kaiser Permanente exists to provide high-quality, affordable health care services and to improve the health of our members and the communities we serve.” Value Categories • • • • • • • Member Services Utilization / Business / Management Education / Knowledge Clinical Care Research / Innovation Quality / Risk / Safety Other The Survey Process • Who: Patrons requesting literature searches or other complex questions • What: Short, standardized survey • When: Monthly • How: Email with a link to SurveyMonkey Preliminary Results: Quality Patient Care Total Responses = 314 Contributed to higher-quality care 214 Information was of clinical value 68% 74% 56% Better informed clinical decision 175 231 Preliminary Results: Adverse Events Avoided Total Responses = 145 Hospital admission 21 14% Additional tests / procedures 79 21% 54% 9% Patient mortality 31 7% Surgery Hospitalacquired infection 13 10 Preliminary Results: Change in Practice Total Responses = 214 Diagnosis 59 23% Overall patient care and treatment 182 Choice of tests 14% 71% 36 14% Choice of medications 3% Length of stay (if hospitalized) 7 37 Preliminary Results: Cognitive Value Total Responses = 339 Refreshed memory of detail/facts Provided new knowledge 38% 129 83% 281 56% Substantiated prior knowledge 190 Lessons Learned • Design of questions • Need to have standardized survey • Timing of survey Implementation Challenges • Internal and external buy-in • Getting librarians to send the survey • Getting surveyed individuals to respond • Standardizing the process and timelines • Creating a process for the analysis and presentation of regional-level report-outs Future Implementation Steps • All KP NCAL libraries will implement the standardized version of the survey • Results will be compiled at the local and regional level • Results will be shared with local and regional medical center leadership • Results will be used for ongoing evaluation of library services for internal performance improvement and external demonstration of value Benefits • Aligning our mission and strategy with the organization’s • Speaking our administrators’ language • Generating standardized data across the region • Obtaining direct user satisfaction data that supports our contribution to quality, performance improvement, and patient safety and satisfaction Questions or Comments? • Rebecca Bayrer, 650-742-2540 [email protected] • Suzanne Beattie, 916-474-7136 [email protected] • Elizabeth Lucas, 408-851-2785 [email protected] • Dawn Melberg, 707-393-4526 [email protected] • Eve Melton, 209-735-4270 [email protected]