Health Sciences Librarians’ Perceptions of Interprofessional Education & Collaboration

Objective: Librarians have a unique perspective on the value of working with other health professions. We sought to learn more about health sciences librarians' experiences with interprofessional activities and to assess their perceptions of interprofessional education (IPE) using a standard measure, the Interprofessional Education Perception Scale (IEPS). Methods: We used a cross-sectional survey design to assess librarians’ perceptions toward IPE, and to gather information on librarian participation in interprofessional activities. The survey consisted of a demographics section; the IEPS, an instrument developed to assess perceived attitudes about interdisciplinary collaboration for one’s own profession; and questions about the librarian’s prior and current experiences with IPE. It was sent via email lists to the MLA Interprofessional Education Special Interest Group (IPE-SIG), and the Research Section (RS), as a comparison group. After overlap between groups was addressed, mean IEPS scores between populations were compared to explore differences in attitudes and perceptions. Other variables of interest included years of experience as a librarian, previous career as a health professional, and experience teaching or supporting interprofessional education. We also compared librarians’ IEPS scores with those of health professional students published previously. Results: Librarians’ scores on the IEPS indicated highly positive perceptions towards IPE. There were no statistically significant differences between the IPE-SIG and RS groups (p=0.59), years of experience as a librarian (p=0.82), previous career as a health professional (p=0.91), or experience supporting IPE (p=0.16). Librarians’ mean IEPS score (262.9) was slightly less than the mean score of all health profession students (265.9) from a prior study by Hawk, but this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.43). Themes identified from two open-ended questions included librarian involvement in teaching and facilitating required learning activities for health professions students, committee involvement, and non-curricular activities such as Grand Rounds and book clubs. Five respondents addressed impact of their activities. Less frequent themes included perceiving respect for librarians as part of IPE, feeling undervalued, and desiring more involvement. Conclusion: This study provides the first data for the IEPS with health sciences librarians. The health sciences librarians who participated in this research report highly positive attitudes towards IPE, in line with the majority of other health professionals studied previously. Years of experience, previous health professional careers, and experience supporting IPE as a librarian had little bearing on the responses to the survey. This suggests that health sciences librarians have positive attitudes towards IPE, regardless of whether they directly support IPE programs

Exploring interprofessional collaboration and attitudes of health sciences librarians

Objective: This study assessed health sciences librarians’ attitudes toward interprofessional collaboration using the Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale (IEPS) and gathered information on their involvement with interprofessional activities. Methods: The authors sent a survey to librarians in the Medical Library Association’s (MLA’s) Interprofessional Education Special Interest Group and Research Section consisting of the IEPS and questions about their prior and current experiences with interprofessional practice and education (IPE). We compared mean IEPS scores between each MLA group and several other demographic factors to assess differences in attitudes. We also compared librarians’ IEPS scores with those of previously published health professional students’ IEPS scores and thematically analyzed two open-ended questions. Results: Health sciences librarians’ scores on the IEPS indicated positive attitudes toward IPE. There were no statistically significant differences between any group. Health sciences librarians’ mean IEPS score was similar to the mean score of health professions students from a prior study. The most commonly reported interprofessional activity was teaching or facilitating learning activities for health professions students; fewer served on committees or engaged in non-curricular activities such as grand rounds and book clubs. Conclusion: Health sciences librarians in this study reported positive attitudes toward IPE, in line with the majority of other previously studied health professionals. Years of experience, previous health professional careers, and experience supporting IPE as a librarian had little bearing on the responses to the survey. This suggests that health sciences librarians have positive attitudes toward IPE, regardless of whether they directly support IPE programs or participate in interprofessional activities

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication

Effects of librarian-provided services in healthcare settings: a systematic review.

Librarian-provided services directed to participants in training programs (eg, students, residents) improve skills in searching the literature to facilitate the integration of research evidence into clinical decision-making. Services provided to clinicians were shown to be effective in saving time for health professionals and providing relevant information for decision-making. Two studies indicated patient length of stay was reduced when clinicians requested literature searches related to a patient's case

Could Changing How You Track Statistics Increase Compliance and Efficiency? Using a Google Form for Library Metrics.

To demonstrate how using an online form created in Google Drive can be an easy, efficient and free method to keep track of library interactions and also synthesize the results.<br><br><br>Presented at the Medical Library Association meeting in Boston, MA. May 2013.<br

Collaboration Matters: Reconfiguring When and What Library Resources Benefit Dietetic Interns

To update and improve library instruction and resources for dietetic interns.<br><br>Presented at the Midwest Chapter of the Medical Library Association meeting in Rochester, MN. October 2012.<br

Can a Quality Systematic Review Have a Single Author?

Systematic reviews are generally considered a team undertaking, requiring sustained effort from many over time. However, published systematic reviews may have as few as one author, calling into question their methodological rigor. For this study, a dataset of 630 previously identified systematic reviews from five high impact general and internal medicine journals from 2008-2012 was used.[1] The number of authors and the number of inclusion and exclusion criteria (or first pass) screeners were extracted from each article in duplicate. The number of authors and screeners was statistically compared to compliance with Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended standards for finding and assessing individual studies (ANOVA) as well as overall reproducibility (chi square)