1. Engaging users in
a journals review
project
Anne Murphy BA DLIS MSc
Head Librarian
Tallaght Hospital
eLibrary Management Workshop,
HSLG, 10th
March 2012

2. Tallaght Hospital,
Dublin
Provide tertiary service to 400,000 people in 3 counties
National referral centre for some clinical specialities

3. Tallaght Hospital
Library
Library website:
Evidence & reference databases
300 journals in 2009
12,000 books

4. 201125%
7%
Hospital
average

5. TOTAL
73
titles cancelled in 2011

6. 2012

15%

7. TOTAL
31
titles cancelled in 2012

8. Number of journal
subscriptions
300 286
213
182
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2009 2010 2011 2012

9. Baseline of 300 journals
in 2009
14
73
31
182
Retained
Cancelled in 2010
Cancelled in 2011
Cancelled in 2012
Total of 118 cancelled titles in 3

10. Not so fast...
31%

11. TOTAL
31 + 83
Journals cut in 2012

12. Number of journals 2012
300
286
213
182
99
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2009 2010 2011 2012 2012

13. Baseline of 300 Journals in 2009
14
73
31
83
99
Retained
Cancelled in 2010
Cancelled in 2011
15%cut in 2012
31%cut in 2012
Total of 201 cancelled titles in 3

14. So. How come our
users are still
speaking to us?

16. Literature Search
• Budget reductions are a primary driver for
libraries in undertaking a journals review.
• Cancellations can damage the relationship
between users and their library if
communication is poorly or incompletely
executed.
• Libraries are keen to include users in the
reviews to safeguard good working
relationships with users and ensure the
relevance of collections

17. The Journal Review
Project
 Meet the budget target
 Protect good relationship with staff
 Retain the most relevant, valued and used
journals

18. Communication
Strategy
• Open a dialogue with our users
• Use the Project to market the Library
• Target group: doctors, senior clinical
staff and managers, and the
Management Team
• Key message: You have a great Library
• Channels: Paper, email, website, face to
face

19. Informed Decisions
Build datasets of metrics and evaluations

20. Identify the journals
Core
1%
Package
8%
Secure funding
9%
For review
82%
286 journals in total
236 for review

21. Conduct the user
evaluations
Rating scale:
1. Essential
2. Cancel only if
necessary
3. May be cancelled
4. Cancel
• Identify the survey group
• Survey method: paper or online
• Decide what titles asking to evaluate

22. User evaluation survey
form
Columns:
Journal title
Rating scale
Department
Format of journal
Subscription status

23. A completed survey
form

24. Respondents in 2011
36% response rate
Medical
47%
Nursing
17%
Allied Health
29%
Other professionals
2%
Management
5%
Response rates:
100% Rheumatology
12% Surgery

25. User evaluations 2012
Leaner and cleaner
Increased the number
surveyed to 550 and
decreased the number of
customised forms to 31

26. Respondents in 2012
Medical
41%
Nursing
19%
Allied
Health
29%
Management
7%
Other Professionals
4%
34% response rate

27. Compile the user
evaluations
Columns:
Journal
Decision
Department
4 sets of columns, 1 per rating: number & percentage
Check column
Total population of respondents

28. Compile the journal
metrics
Cost
Usage
Cost per use

29. The decision-making process
in


30. Decision-making
criteria
• Principles
– departments would have equitable coverage
– The most used and most valued would be
retained
• 2011 - 1 title per dept to cut
• 2012
– 15%: 2 journals per department to keep
– 31%: 4 core titles and aimed to retain 1 journal
per department

31. Round 1 – Identify definite
keepers
30 titles

32. Round 2: two thresholds
44 journals tagged for probable
cancellation
9 journals identified for
purchase
Cost > €2,000
OR
< 1O uses

33. Round 3
Departmental /
Speciality titles
55 journals
identified for
cancellation

34. Round 4
Departmental /
Speciality titles
18 journals
identified for
cancellation

35. Communicate the
results
Key Message: Use the journals

36. Feedback in 2011
“This is very interesting...”

37. Post-operative Review
2011
• The decision-making process proved
successful
• Successfully managed staff expectations
• Librarians’ knowledge is crucial

38. Beginning to bite...

39. nmnmm
nmnmn
mnmnm
nmnmn
mnmnm
nmnmn
mnmnm
nnmnmn
mnm
Consider all these titles as core reading
Two specialist journals is a minimum
Two [...] journals for a teaching hospital is a
disgrace

40. Midpoint of 2012 Project
 Report back to hospital staff in
June 2012
 Meet with stakeholders
 Leverage staff advocacy for
their information needs to be
met
 Survey staff about their use of
the published literature,
discovery methods and their
experience of the research
publishing process

41. Stakeholder meetings
• May
– Pharmacy,
– Health & Social Care Professions
– Laboratory
• June
– Clinical Specialities
– Nursing
– Other

42. Why do they need the
library?
• Clinical practice
• For the care of a specific patient to answer a
clinical query about their treatment
• Guiding practice and keeping up to date
• Provide teaching and internship to MSc &
PhD students/trainees
• CPD points for maintaining registration

43. Communication: staying
out front• Be available, start discussions, support your
decisions with evidence, and listen and
record what your users are telling you, and
reflect it back to them
• Raised the Library’s profile and credibility
with clinicians: they value research and find
prestige in being published, and presenting
at conference
• No drama, just calm building of evidence and
persistence in making the case

44. Our users are talking
with us because we
actively engaged with
them and continue to do
so, and we are visible
and accessible.
The alternative is
closure.

45. Hospital photographs by kind permission of Tommy Walsh, Clinical Photographer, Tallaght

46. Further reading
Carey R, Elfstrand S, Hijleh R, An evidence-based approach for gaining faculty acceptance in a
serials cancellation project, Collection Management, 2006, 30(2), 59-72.
Gallagher J, Bauer K, Dollar D M, Evidence-based librarianship: utilizing data from all available
sources to make judicious print cancellation decisions, Library Collections, Acquisitions, and
Technical Services, 2005; 29, 169-179.
Sinha R, Tucker C, Scherlen A, Finding the delicate balance: serials assessment at the University
of Nevada, Las Vegas, Serials Review, 2005, 31(2),120-124
Haley P, Analysis of print and electronic serials’ use statistics facilitates print cancellation
decisions, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 2006, 1, 57-59.
Day A, A look at librarianship through the lens of an academic library serials review, In the library
with the lead pipe [serial on the internet]. 2009, p.3 (accessed 18 October 2010). (
http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2009/a-look-at-librarianship-through-the-lens-of-an-ac
)
Ward R K, Christensen J O, Spackman E, A systematic approach for evaluating and upgrading
academic science journal collections, Serials Review, 2005, 32(1), 4-16.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Murphy, A, An evidence-based approach to engaging healthcare users in a journal review project,
Insights,2012, 25(1), 44–50, doi: 10.1629/2048-7754.25.1.44
Murphy, A, An evidence-based approach to engaging healthcare users in a journal review project.
Presentation at 35th UKSG Conference, Glasgow, 26th-28th March2012.
http://river-valley.tv/an-evidence-based-approach-to-engaging-healthcare-users-in-a-journals-review