PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of jmlaJournal informationSubscribeSubmissions on the Publisher web siteCurrent issue of JMLA in PMCAlso see BMLA journal in PMC
 
J Med Libr Assoc. 2010 July; 98(3): 196–199.
PMCID: PMC2901006

It was the worst of times, it was the best of times: positive trends influencing hospital libraries*

Michele Klein-Fedyshin, BSN, MSLS, RN, AHIP

There is a certain irony to libraries in hospitals being closed at a time when the value and impact of evidence-based information for patient care is increasingly being recognized [1, 2]. Between 1989 and 2006, it is estimated that between 36% and 44% of hospital libraries closed [3]. The closures may have resulted from the dilution of relevant hospital library standards by the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. As an example, the 1999 accreditation manual included three “Knowledge-based information” (KBI) standards [4]. The first required that hospitals provide “systems, resources and services to meet KBI needs in patient care, education, research and management.” The intent section elaborated that this could be met by an on-site library, a qualified medical librarian, or a cooperative arrangement for their provision. By 2009, all that remained was one standard requiring access to KBI. Without the provision for a library or librarian, any “current and authoritative” website could suffice [5]. The dilution of Joint Commission standards appears to sanction reducing the level of knowledge required in hospitals. There is not enough evidence to establish a causal relationship between the revised standards and the closure of hospital libraries, but the trends coincide. Pressures that diminish the availability of information conflict with the rising absolute need for more knowledge.

Consider this: In the course of any single day, approximately 95,616 patients are hospitalized in the United States [6]. Insurance providers record the number of tests, surgery, and drugs administered to these patients, but no one measures the level of knowledge brought to their care. The need for information to support patient care has been documented: Research shows that 2 questions arise for every 3 patients in office practice [7] and an average of 5 questions arise per patient encounter in academic medical settings [8]. These questions may go unanswered. Studies report that physicians pursue answers to only 36%–55% of questions raised about patients' care [9, 10]. Unanswered questions, or even unasked questions, may lead to poorer medical care. The Institute of Medicine estimates that as many as 98,000 Americans die each year from preventable medical errors [11]. With 95,616 patients in the hospital any given day, an average of 5 questions per patient encounter in academic settings, and at most only 55% of these questions being pursued, that leaves at least 215,136 questions a day going unanswered. No wonder health care errors have become a national crisis and remain at an unacceptable level [12]. In the face of rising errors and accumulating knowledge, finding time to sort through the literature to find answers to specific patient questions is crucial to quality patient care. Clinicians are hard pressed to find the time to answer these care questions. Yet the one staff person whose job it is to answer them, the librarian, is no longer a requirement.

Evidence-based medicine is not without controversy: Ill-advised advocates for “evidence-free,” also known as “logical,” medicine have surfaced. Proponents of evidence-free medicine say it allows the “incorporation of a variety of facts and warrants, reasons and reasoning, into clinical decisions. Forgoing evidence allows clinical medicine to once again be a personal and prudential undertaking, arising from and focused on the individual patient” [13]. Evidence-free medicine may be a reaction to the evidence-challenged environment of hospitals deregulated from having access to a librarian or library. It is wise not to need what you do not have. Without the assistance of a qualified librarian and support for a collection, there is no one to call for searches and no journal subscriptions if an article is needed. The conflict between weakening information requirements on the one hand and increasing need for information resources on the other may result in diminishing availability of quality care. Who would really want to be treated at a hospital lacking an information base?

Reactions to the eroding knowledge core are mounting. The following developments illustrate the pressures for change and the opportunities they create for librarians:

  • President Obama's emphasis on comparative effectiveness research may encourage medicine to use what works for patient populations on a large scale. Practitioners need the literature base to determine what is effective and where exceptions exist and, at some point, to enable payment for genetic variations or innovations. The electronic health record (EHR) can effectively distribute such practice guidelines, and librarians are already actively involved in integrating practice guidelines with KBI resources [14, 15]. Deepening their involvement with the EHR, librarians are using their classification and electronic record knowledge to inventory physician order sets and develop record databases [16]. Beyond installation, librarians stay on to educate staff in information retrieval, as training is a long-standing function for librarians.
  • “Magnet” hospitals are associated with nursing excellence because their environment of care fosters a quality focus. Magnet hospital status, a designation of the American Nurses Credentialing Center, pushes for anchoring hospital, even unit-based, polices to the literature. “Creating, advancing, and sustaining a practice environment grounded in evidence-based practice and nursing research is essential to achieving Magnet status” [17]. Literature's importance in this setting is demonstrated by a recent survey of Magnet-certified institutions, which has found that 94% have access to a medical or nursing library in the medical center complex and another 4% have library privileges although outside the center [18]. Nurses are pivotal in quality care, being unit-based first responders and care providers. As they strive for excellence, they enhance the focus on information resources. Why not work at a hospital that uses what works? This integration of evidence into the Magnet Program facilitates librarian involvement and library use [19].
  • The movement to tie better results into better reimbursement is already underway in the form of Medicare's Pay for Performance initiatives. Perhaps the existing unsatisfactory hospital performance relates to the elimination of the library as a requirement for Medicare reimbursement in 1984 [20]. Hospitals need information resources to determine effective techniques and best practices in order to achieve better results. The conflict noted above is evident here: The requirement for information resources falls, while the need for information usage grows. Pay for Performance may require access to the literature, for example, when the hospital committee charged with developing a protocol for urinary catheter removal calls the librarian for a search. When the question becomes, “When is the best time for catheter removal?,” those institutions with a library can find an answer supported by data.
  • New preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews require writers to describe their “search methodology” along with their research methodology and to identify “who designed and conducted the literature search” [21]. This statement emphasizes the importance of the information scientist and supports the premise that correctly synthesizing the literatures requires first retrieving the entire relevant literature base. PRISMA standards have been simultaneously published by four journals and are fast replacing earlier efforts to offer standards for systematic review information retrieval. The recognition of the importance of the literature retrieval process may be a reaction to the loss of life, possibly due to poor literature searching [22]. If accepted at a national level, the need for a search could be included in mandatory care guidelines for reimbursement. Given that systematic reviews are beginning to define best practice, librarians are well positioned to play a central role in the development of practice guidelines.
  • Broadened accessibility of “detailing” services like systematic review assistance, search protocol projects, and librarian attendance at morning report reflect the increasing value given to “expert searching.” A recent US survey has found the percentage of clinical librarians (CLs) increasing, with approximately 200 CLs in 2005/06 [3]. CLs possess the sophisticated knowledge needed to integrate diagnosis, drug, and disease variables. As an example, they can find literature on how therapy for psychosis changes in an immune-suppressed transplant patient on multiple drugs, with an underlying inherited disease. Support for the importance of the CL role is provided by a 2008 report commissioned by the British National Health Service (NHS) to review library and knowledge services in England. The report recommended an increase in the number of clinical librarians from 50 to 800 [23]. The British NHS report advocates for CLs as part of their effort to “make the best use of its resources to provide high quality, equitable care for patients” [23]. CLs help find effective interventions in the literature and bridge the gap between article and bedside. With the Oxford-founded Cochrane Collaboration demonstrating the impact of systematic reviews to determine efficacy, the international emphasis on using literature to advance care is flourishing.

Increasingly, the “science” in “library science” itself is growing. The Evidence-based Library and Information Practice journal attests to the growing amount of science supporting information practice [24]. As librarians, we must advance and embrace the structure underlying good information retrieval and audit trails documenting a quality search. Accountability for the results only increases the value of the search and searcher.

Hopefully, someday institutions will score their “information readiness” in order to quantify the information resources available for the care of individual patients. The information readiness score might be akin to designations like the “most-wired” status for hospitals [25] or hierarchy levels for trauma centers [26]. The availability of search design assistance or search performance by a qualified information professional, timeliness of article delivery, currency and depth of the literature collection, number of hours of onsite access, and number of licensed databases might factor into the level of information readiness. Hospital staff may note in the EHR the level of evidence used in decision making and the consultant who conducted the search. Institutions may come to boast about the level of knowledge available for patient care, while the time to diffusion and use of knowledge at the bedside may shorten.

Many are quick to tout the broad-based searching of Google as the answer to “searching” in medicine. Searching and finding are two different things. Science has determined that multiple databases need to be searched for adequate coverage [27] and that Google Scholar lags behind academic databases for timeliness [28]. When it comes to searching versus finding, librarians have a privileged position [29]. The librarian has the combination of time, technique, and training, plus the expertise, to find the needed information. There is a subtle shift in the literature to valuing who is the searcher, paying attention to what they are searching, and determining the level of evidence of the retrieval. An article in the journal Chest recommends that “a professional information specialist should be engaged” before claiming “the literature shows that…” [30]. In time, hospitals may return to the notion that the librarian is an expert consultant who can provide evidence, maximizes the electronic database, and is an essential component in quality care. These hospitals' patients would not be the first people to owe their lives to a librarian [31].

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Peter J. Fedyshin and Carla J. Funk, CAE, for reviewing the manuscript.

Footnotes

*Adapted from Dickens C. A tale of two cities. New York, NY: Modern Library; 1996.

References

1. Klein M.S, Ross F.V, Adams D.L, Gilbert C.M. Effect of online literature searching on length of stay and patient care costs. Acad Med. 1994 Jun;69(6):489–95. [PubMed]
2. Weightman A.L, Williamson J. Library & Knowledge Development Network (LKDN) Quality and Statistics Group. The value and impact of information provided through library services for patient care: a systematic review. Health Info Libr J. 2005 Mar;22(1):4–25. [PubMed]
3. Thibodeau P.L, Funk C.J. Trends in hospital librarianship and hospital library services: 1989 to 2006. J Med Libr Assoc. 2009 Oct;97(4):273–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
4. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Comprehensive accreditation manual for hospitals: the official handbook. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: The Commission; 1999. [PubMed]
5. Joint Commission. Comprehensive accreditation manual: CAMH for hospitals; the official handbook. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: The Commission; 2009.
6. DeFrances C.J, Podgornik M.N. 2004 National hospital discharge survey, advance data from vital and health statistics; no 371. Table 1 [Internet] Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2006. [cited 1 Feb 2010]. < http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/hospital.htm>.
7. Covell D.G, Uman G.C, Manning P.R. Information needs in office practice: are they being met. Ann Intern Med. 1985 Oct;103(4):596–9. [PubMed]
8. Osheroff J.A, Forsythe D.E, Buchanan B.G, Bankowitz R.A, Blumenfeld B.H, Miller R.A. Physicians' information needs: analysis of questions posed during clinical teaching. Ann Intern Med. 1991 Apr 1;114(7):576–81. [PubMed]
9. Ely J.W, Osheroff J.A, Ebell M.H, Bergus G.R, Levy B.T, Chambliss M.L, Evans E.R. Analysis of questions asked by family doctors regarding patient care. BMJ. 1999 Aug 7;319(7206):358–61. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
10. Ely J.W, Osheroff J.A, Chambliss M.L, Ebell M.H, Rosenbaum M.E. Answering physicians' clinical questions: obstacles and potential solutions. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005 Mar–Apr;12(2):217–24. Epub: 2004 Nov 23. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
11. Kohn K.T, Corrigan J.M, Donaldson M.S, editors. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2000.
12. Aspden P, Wolcott J.A, Bootman J.L, Cronenwett L.R, editors. Committee on Identifying and Preventing Medication Errors, Institute of Medicine. Preventing medication errors. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007.
13. Tonelli M.R. Evidence-free medicine: forgoing evidence in clinical decision making. Perspect Biol Med. 2009 Spring;52(2):319–31. [PubMed]
14. Albert K.M. Integrating knowledge-based resources into the electronic health record: history, current status, and role of librarians. Med Ref Serv Q. 2007 Fall;26(3):1–19. [PubMed]
15. Fuller S.S, Ketchell D.S, Tarczy-Hornoch P, Masuda D. Integrating knowledge resources at the point of care: opportunities for librarians. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1999 Oct;87(4):393–403. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
16. Ellero N.P. Crossing over: health sciences librarians contributing and collaborating on electronic medical record implementation. J Hosp Libr. 2009;9:89–107.
17. Turkel M.C, Reidinger G, Ferket K, Reno K. An essential component of the Magnet journey: fostering an environment for evidence-based practice and nursing research. Nurs Adm Q. 2005 Jul–Sep;29(3):254–62. [PubMed]
18. Sherwill-Navarro P, Allen M. NAHRS 2007 Magnet coordinator survey: final report [Internet] Nursing and Allied Health Resources Section, Medical Library Association; 28 Apr 2008. [cited 1 Feb 2010]. < http://www.nahrs.mlanet.org/activity/mapping/research/>.
19. Allen M.P, Allison M.M, Bandy M.M, Kennedy J.C, Sherwill-Navarro P. The Magnet journey: opportunities for librarians to partner with nurses. J Med Libr Assoc. 2009 Oct;97(4):302–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
20. Health Care Financing Administration. Medicare programs: prospective payments for Medicare inpatient hospital services—HCFA: final rule. Fed Regist. 1984 Jan 3;49(1):234–334. [PubMed]
21. Liberati A, Altman D.G, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche P.C, Ioannidis J.P, Clarke M, Devereaux P.J, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):W65–94. Epub: 2009 Jul 20. [PubMed]
22. Perkins E. Johns Hopkins tragedy: could librarians have prevented death. Inform Today [Internet]. 2001;7 Aug [cited 1 Feb 2010]. < http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/nbreader.asp?ArticleID=17534>.
23. Hill P. Report of a national review of NHS health library standards in England: from knowledge to health in the 21st century [Internet] UK National Health Service; Mar 2008. [cited 1 Feb 2010]. < http://www.library.nhs.uk/nlhdocs/national_library_review_final_report_4feb_081.pdf>.
24. University of Alberta Learning Services. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract [Internet] 2010;5(10) [cited 12 Feb 2010]. < http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/>.
25. Solovy A, Hoppszallern S, Brown S.B. 100 most wired: being most wired in a down economy. about the survey. Hosp Health Netw. 2009 Jul;83(7):28–37. [PubMed]
26. Committee on Trauma, American College of Surgeons. Verified trauma centers [Internet] The College; 30 Sep 2009. [cited 1 Feb 2010]. < http://www.facs.org/trauma/verifiedfaq.html>.
27. Lemeshow A.R, Blum R.E, Berlin J.A, Stoto M.A, Colditz G.A. Searching one or two databases was insufficient for meta-analysis of observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Sep;58(9):867–73. [PubMed]
28. Falagas M.E, Pitsouni E.I, Malietzis G.A, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008 Feb;22(2):338–42. Epub: 2007 Sep 20. [PubMed]
29. McKibbon K.A, Haynes R.B, Dilks C.J, Ramsden M.F, Ryan N.C, Baker L, Flemming T, Fitzgerald D. How good are clinical MEDLINE searches? a comparative study of clinical end-user and librarian searches. Comput Biomed Res. 1990 Dec;23(6):583–93. [PubMed]
30. Foote M. Backing up your statements: how to perform literature searches to prove your points. Chest. 2009 Nov;136(5):1432–4. [PubMed]
31. Weber P.J. Medicare plan could make oral cancer drugs a tough swallow. Cure. 2004 Summer;3(2):32.

Articles from Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA are provided here courtesy of Medical Library Association