Evaluation of literature searching and article selection skills of an evidence-based practice team
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.865Keywords:
Evidence-Based Practice, Evidence Synthesis, Literature Search, Article Selection, Quality ImprovementAbstract
Background: An evidence-based practice (EBP) team at an academic medical center supports the development of evidence-based hospital policies and protocols via “Evidence Briefs.” An early career librarian was added to the EBP team to meet increased requests for Evidence Briefs, which provided an opportunity to initiate a quality improvement (QI) analysis, improve work flow, and cross-train staff on literature searching and article selection skills.
Case Presentation: This QI project evaluated literature searching and article selection skills of an early career librarian (less than 2 years’ experience), a mid-career librarian (more than 10 years’ experience), and a critical appraisal expert. This project examined 10 Evidence Brief requests completed within a 6-month period. Analysis of each individual’s performance of literature searching and article selection was completed for each Evidence Brief. Across all Evidence Brief requests, the mid-career librarian performed the most comprehensive literature searches and captured the highest number of articles that ultimately ended up being included in the Evidence Briefs (75%). The critical appraisal expert performed best on the article selection portion of the project and identified the highest number of relevant articles that were included in Evidence Briefs (74%).
Conclusions: This project provided a formalized method of assessing the literature searching and article selection skills of each member of the EBP team. This project illustrated the skill level of each individual and led to improvements in the Evidence Brief request work flow.References
US Department of Health & Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Clinical decision support (CDS) [Internet]. Rockville, MD: The Agency [cited 2 Oct 2019]. <https://healthit.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/current-health-it-priorities/clinical-decision-support-cds>.
Slavin RE. Best evidence synthesis: an intelligent alternative to meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995 Jan;48(1):9–18. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(94)00097-A.
Brettle A, Maden-Jenkins M, Anderson L, McNally R, Pratchett T, Tancock J, Thornton D, Webb A. Evaluating clinical librarian services: a systematic review. Health Inf Libr J. 2011 Mar;28(1):3–22. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2010.00925.x.
GRADE Working Group. What is GRADE? [Internet]. GRADE [rev. 2019; cited 14 Jan 2020]. <https://www.gradeworkinggroup.org>.
Murad MH, Mustafa RA, Schünemann HJ, Sultan S, Santesso N. Rating the certainty in evidence in the absence of a single estimate of effect. Evid Based Med. 2017 Jun;22(3):85–7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2017-110668.
Aamodt M, Huurdeman H, Strømme H. Librarian co-authored systematic reviews are associated with lower risk of bias compared to systematic reviews with acknowledgement of librarians or no participation by librarians. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract. 2019 Dec;14(4):103–27. DOI: http://dx.doi.org//10.18438/eblip29601.
Esparza JM, Shi R, McLarty J, Comegys M, Banks DE. The effect of a clinical medical librarian on in-patient care outcomes. J Med Libr Assoc. 2013 Jul;101(3):185–91. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.3.007.
Brian R, Orlov N, Werner D, Martin SK, Arora VM, Alkureishi M. Evaluating the impact of clinical librarians on clinical questions during inpatient rounds. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Apr;106(2):175–83. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.254.
Morgan-Daniel J, Schaefer N. Assessing our judgement: comparing librarian and allied health professionals’ evaluation of relevance of search results. Presented at: SCMLA ’18, the Southern Chapter (SC)/MLA 68th Annual Meeting; Orlando, FL; 26 Oct 2018.
