...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Evidence Based Library and Information Practice >Adaptation of Impact Questions from an Existing Toolkit Provided Clear Assessment of Valued Service Elements and Desirable Service Improvements in a Primary Health Care Library and Information Service
【24h】

Adaptation of Impact Questions from an Existing Toolkit Provided Clear Assessment of Valued Service Elements and Desirable Service Improvements in a Primary Health Care Library and Information Service

机译：改编现有工具包中的影响问题，对初级卫生保健图书馆和信息服务中的有价值的服务要素和期望的服务改进进行了清晰的评估

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Objective – To provide an action plan for the Knowledge, Resource and Information Service (KRIS) based on an impact assessment of current services, satisfaction with current services, and views on desirable improvements to service and service delivery. Design – Questionnaire for KRIS service users and interviews with KRIS staff. Setting – Two locations served by KRIS in the north and south of Bristol City in the UK – one a health promotion service and one a National Health Service (NHS) teaching hospital. Subjects – A convenience sample of a total of 244 users of the library services at the two locations, 121 users at the health promotion service site and 123 users at the hospital site. Methods – A questionnaire designed for a previous NHS library service impact study was adapted for use with staff other than health workers, since teachers and youth workers, for example, also used the health promotion service. The researchers circulated the questionnaire by mail and email to prospective respondents. The questionnaire asked participants to reflect on the most recent time they had used KRIS services and provide details on the purpose of use, what elements of the service they used, satisfaction with the service or the information provided, the immediate impact on their work, and its probable contribution to future work. It also asked about desirable improvements and how KRIS contributed to the respondents’ work and continuing professional development. The researchers interviewed KRIS staff face to face and asked for their views on the history of the service and future developments. Main Results – The overall response rate was 62.3% (152/244), with similar responses from each site. Community nurses and midwives were the largest group of respondents (n=31, 20.4%), followed by managers and administrators (n=24, 15.8%). Both sites reported health promotion activities as the dominant reason for use. Health promotion leaflets (n=94, 61.8%) and resources for loan (n=57, 37.5%) were the top two service elements used, with literature searching third (n=46, 30.3%). The service completely met the needs of 93% (n=141) of respondents, with 97.4% (n=148) reporting being wholly satisfied that information was delivered in time. In terms of the immediate cognitive impact of the information obtained, 93% (n=141) reported obtaining relevant information, 76% (n=115) current information, and 72% (n=109) accurate information. Nearly 70% were distributing information or resources to other people, and 68% were sharing or discussing information provided with colleagues. Nobody claimed that they had found little or nothing of value. Advice to patients, clients or carers was the most frequently cited impact category (n=104, 68%), followed by advice to colleagues (n=84, 55.3%). The main strengths of the service were the perceived reliability of the service, the current awareness and alerting service run from one site, and literature searching support for commissioning and public health enquiries. Respondents reported saving time, and the main cognitive impact was the perceived relevance of the information obtained. Service weaknesses identified related to accessibility issues such as parking, opening hours, and staff coverage, and outreach was identified as the main service development opportunity. Conclusion – The adaptation of an existing questionnaire provided a clear assessment of the effectiveness of a primary health care information service to a broad spectrum of users. Respondents identified what they valued about the service and how it could be improved.
机译：目标–根据对当前服务的影响评估，对当前服务的满意度以及对服务和服务交付的期望改进的看法，为知识，资源和信息服务（KRIS）提供一项行动计划。设计–针对KRIS服务用户的问卷调查以及对KRIS工作人员的采访。地点–英国布里斯托尔市北部和南部的KRIS在两个地点提供服务-一个地点为健康促进服务，而另一个地点为国家卫生服务（NHS）教学医院。主题–便利样本包括两个地点的总共244个图书馆服务用户，健康促进服务站点的121个用户和医院站点的123个用户。方法–为以前的NHS图书馆服务影响研究设计的调查表适用于卫生工作者以外的其他人员，因为例如教师和青年工作者也使用了健康促进服务。研究人员通过邮件和电子邮件将问卷分发给了预期的受访者。问卷要求参与者反思他们最近使用KRIS服务的时间，并提供有关使用目的，使用的服务的哪些要素，对服务或所提供信息的满意度，对其工作的直接影响以及它对未来工作的可能贡献。它还询问了理想的改进，以及KRIS如何为受访者的工作和持续的专业发展做出贡献。研究人员面对面采访了KRIS员工，并询问了他们对服务历史和未来发展的看法。主要结果–总体回应率为62.3％（152/244），每个站点的回应相似。社区护士和助产士是受访者中最大的群体（n = 31，20.4％），其次是经理和行政人员（n = 24，15.8％）。两个站点都报告了促进健康的活动是使用的主要理由。促进健康的传单（n = 94，61.8％）和贷款资源（n = 57，37.5％）是使用的前两个服务要素，文献搜索排在第三（n = 46，30.3％）。该服务完全满足了93％（n = 141）的受访者的需求，其中97.4％（n = 148）的报告完全满意信息的及时交付。就所获得信息的即时认知影响而言，有93％（n = 141）报告获得了相关信息，76％（n = 115）当前信息和72％（n = 109）准确信息。近70％的人在向其他人分发信息或资源，而68％的人在与同事共享或讨论信息。没有人声称他们几乎没有发现价值。对患者，服务对象或护理者的建议是最常提及的影响类别（n = 104，68％），其次是对同事的建议（n = 84，55.3％）。该服务的主要优势是：感知到的服务可靠性，当前从一个站点运行的意识和警报服务，以及为调试和公共卫生查询提供文献搜索支持。受访者表示节省时间，主要的认知影响是所获得信息的相关性。与停车，开放时间和员工覆盖面等可访问性问题相关的服务弱点被确定为主要的服务开发机会。结论–现有问卷的改编为广大用户提供了对初级卫生保健信息服务有效性的清晰评估。受访者确定了他们对该服务的评价以及如何对其进行改进。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号