Hello Library Linkers!
This month we have several exciting announcements!
Check out the PDF version of the newsletter below to access the clickable links!
Great news! The Health Sciences Library’s collection has been indexed on Google Scholar.
Those with access to St. Michael’s resources can now access all of our collections through Google Scholar in just 4 easy steps!
Open Google Scholar.
Go to the settings tab by clicking on the three horizontal lines next to Google Scholar’s logo on the top left corner of your screen.
Under the Settings tab you’ll see a short list; Languages, Library Links, Account, and Button. Select Library links.
In the search bar type in St. Michael’s Hospital, and select the adjacent box then hit save to have St. Michael’s Hospital as your default library on Google Scholar. By selecting St. Michael’s Hospital you will be able to access articles available through St. Michael’s Hospital while searching through Google Scholar on-site.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to reach out to, hslibrary@smh.ca.
Happy Searching!
In a systematic review study, conducted by our very own librarian, David Lightfoot, the authors assess the effects of librarian-provided services in healthcare settings on patient, healthcare provider, and researcher outcomes. In this study, the authors included 22 primary publications and three companion reports. It is available in an open-access journal. Happy reading! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=24872341
Perrier L, Farrell A, Ayala AP, Lightfoot D, Kenny T, Aaronson E, Allee N, Brigham T, Connor E, Constantinescu T, Muellenbach J. Effects of librarian-provided services in healthcare settings: a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2014 May 28;21(6):1118-24.
Systematic reviews are very important because many clinical guidelines and standard clinical practices are informed by and/or based on them. There is ample literature assessing the quality of systematic reviews across many disciplines, and a common theme that has emerged from a number of these studies has been the need for improving the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Two studies by Rethlefsen et al. (2015) and Meert et al. (2016) have looked at and compared systematic reviews with and without a librarian as co-authors. Both studies have found that having a librarian as part of the team correlated with a higher quality of reported search strategies in general internal medicine and pediatric systematic reviews respectively.
Indiana Hand to Shoulder Center has introduced an embedded librarian position as part of the research team that attends the morbidity & mortality and difficult problem sessions. These sessions are designed for specific, difficult, and complicated cases in which the patient is examined by multiple doctors and fellows, followed by a discussion of treatment options. The advantages of having the librarian as an integral part of the research team are to reinforce evidence-based practice by preparing literature reviews, create Google Scholar Alerts for individual clinicians, and introduce developing technologies and online access to non-traditional resources. This is not the first and only example of an embedded librarian program in the health care setting.
A case-control study by Banks et al (2007) has reported that literature searches guided by the librarians are an effective means to reduce hospital length of stay (LOS). In this study, a librarian participated in the case discussions (n=105) at the residents’ morning reports (MRs) and conducted literature searches. This activity resulted in a reduction of LOS compare to the time that the cases were not discussed at MRs (3 days vs. 5 days, P < 0.024).
Banks DE, Shi R, Timm DF, Christopher KA, Duggar DC, Comegys M, McLarty J. Decreased hospital length of stay associated with presentation of cases at morning report with librarian support. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA. 2007 Oct;95(4):381
In a study by McGowan et al (2012), the cost-benefit analysis of librarian consultation services in primary care (a sample size of 88 primary care providers in the Ottawa region) was conducted. The authors found that those physicians who received the literature searching service, required on average 13.6 min to ask their clinical question to be answered by a librarian; whereas, the control group required 20.29 min (on average) to search the question themselves. The authors proposed “nationally if this service was implemented and if family physicians saw additional patients when this service saved them time, up to 61,100 extra patients could be seen annually”. In addition, they conducted a cost avoidance using this service. For more information visit https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3307768/
