Evaluation of the KA24 (Knowledge Access 24) service for health- and social-care staff in London and the south-east of England. Part 2: qualitative

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this two-part paper is to identify the main transferable lessons learned from both the quantitative and qualitative evaluations of the KA24 (Knowledge Access 24) service of online databases and selected full text journals for health and social care staff in London and the South-East of England. The objectives of the qualitative evaluation were to assess the enablers and barriers to usage, and to assess the impact of the service on patient care. METHODS: Telephone interviews (n=65) and a questionnaire survey (n=296) were conducted with various types of user, in various Trust settings. Some non-users were also contacted. Selection of interviewees and questionnaire recipients was not random, and aimed to cover all groups of users representatively. RESULTS: Results show that policy goals were being delivered, with indications of changes to clinical practice, and improved clinical governance. Promotion, training and support needs to be extensive, and tailored to needs, but users are not always aware they need training. The sharing of passwords cast doubts on the reliability of some usage data. CONCLUSIONS: Digital health library services, delivered at the point of care, are changing the way some clinicians practise. A combination of qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods are needed to assess digital library services

Evaluation of the KA24 (Knowledge Access 24) service for health and social care staff in London and the South-East of England. Part 1: Quantitative

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This two-part paper aims to identify the main transferable lessons learned from both the quantitative and qualitative evaluations of the Knowledge Access 24 (KA24) service of online databases and selected full-text journals for health and social care staff in London and the south-east of England. The quantitative evaluation analysed usage rates and user registration with the objective of measuring uptake by previously disadvantaged staff, and to inform the subsequent qualitative survey. METHODS: User and usage data were analysed by type of NHS Trust, by type of user, and by what was being used. The evaluation assessed development in user registration and usage of both databases and journals over a 2-year period. Data were aggregated and analysed both monthly and quarterly. RESULTS: Usage levels increased, but uptake in both the mental health and primary care sectors was comparatively slow. Nurses and allied professionals used the service more than doctors. The increase in usage of full-text journals over the usage of databases was marked. CONCLUSIONS: Previously disadvantaged staff used electronic resources. A qualitative survey was needed to identify the main enablers and barriers to uptake