Tag Archives: statistics

1,016.29 or 1,280 and counting…

Piqued your interest? These figures relate to the full-time equivalent posts (1,016.29) and head count (1,280) for library and knowledge service posts when fully staffed in England in 2017-18.

The data is taken from the annual statistical returns that are completed by Health
Education England funded library and knowledge services namely:

Health Education England Annual NHS Library Services Annual Statistical 2016-17 part 1
Health Education England Annual NHS Library Services Annual Statistical 2017-18 part 1

I have completed some interim analysis of the 2017-18 and 2016-17 collated and this post gives an overview of the findings.
Please go to the end of this post to download copies of the supporting documents.

National

The table below shows the changes from 2016-17 to 2017-18 so the total number of posts is fairly static. There are fewer para-professional posts (those banded NHS Agenda for Change 1 to 4) but even this 2.79% drop is not particularly significant.

NATIONAL
Posts: Full-time Equivalent
(FTE)
all LKS posts Professional posts
(bands 5 to 8)
Para-professional posts (bands 1 to 4)
2017-18 TOTALS 1,016.29 628.28 388.01
2016-17 TOTALS 1,028.37 629.21 399.16

The head count figures perhaps show the most telling trend. We have more individuals in professional posts (740 compared with 728); fewer in para-professional posts (540
compared with 553).

NATIONAL
Posts: Head Count
 
all LKS posts Professional posts
(bands 5 to 8)
Para-professional posts (bands 1 to 4)
2017-18 TOTALS 1,280 740 540
2016-17 TOTALS 1,281 728 553

Regional

Looking at the HEE regions, London and the South East have both lost posts but the North has had the largest reduction losing 8.54 full-time equivalent posts. Both Midlands and the East and the South have made small gains.

In the HEE regions only the North has seen a small increase in para-professional posts while the other three regions have all lost posts.

East Midlands and the North East both have slightly more para-professionals than
professionals in both full-time equivalents and posts. This bucks the trend in all the other HEE areas.

When we compare the proportion of the library and knowledge services staff in
professional and para-professional posts London and the South East outstrip the rest.
The figure is almost the same for 2016-17. Does it reflect the number of HEI provided
services in London?

2017-18 Professional posts (FTE) Para-professional posts
National 62% 38%
London and South East 71% 29%
Midlands and East 57% 43%
North 58% 42%
South 58% 42%

Qualifications

This is meant as a taster as I have only carried out some initial analysis of the qualifications of our staff.

For 2017-18 we have 57.55% of the workforce with an LKS professional qualification.
The North have the most qualified staff at 60% of the workforce; while London and the South East have the lowest at 55.73%.

NATIONAL
Posts: Full-time
Equivalent (FTE)
Professionally
qualified staff
Para-Professionally
qualified staff

 
No LKS
qualification
2017-18 TOTALS 544.89 120.62 298.95
2016-17 TOTALS 547.55 115.50 288.45

To remind you this is how we classify the three categories:

Professionally
qualified
Professionally qualified library staff (i.e. 1st degree in library information science (LIS), PG Diploma, Masters or PhD in LIS, MCLIP, FCLIP or ALA (former Library Association exams)
Para-professionally
qualified
Para-professionally qualified library staff (i.e. ACLIP, LIS NVQ, City and Guilds)
No LKS
qualification
No library qualification (include here NVQs in Customer Service, Business Administration etc.)

Further analysis and copies of the documents will be available at a later date.

I am sure I will find some other interesting nuggets when I do some more analysis. If you have any thoughts on how the differences can be explained I would be pleased to hear them.

Linda Ferguson

HEE Library & Knowledge Services Statistics Lead

For the Quality and Impact Group

linda.ferguson@nhs.net

Further information – copies of documents

Blank return: NHS_Library_Services_Annual_Statistical_Return_2017-18_part_1

National_LKS_Staffing_2016-17_and_2017-18

Staffing analysis by HEE region:

LaSE_LKS_Staffing_2016-17_and_2017-18

Midlands_&_East_LKS Staffing_2016-17_and_2017-18

North_LKS_Staffing_2016-17_and_2017-18

South_LKS_Staffing_2016-17_and_2017-18

 

Follow the money – auditing and reviewing the investment in LKS

Do we know where the money invested in NHS library and knowledge services comes from?

Do we know how much is invested?

We all have questions about the funding levels and whether it is appropriate for what is expected to be delivered as part of an NHS library and knowledge service.

Health Education England has commissioned CIBER Research Ltd. http://ciber-research.eu/ to carry out an audit/review with the aim of improving the effectiveness and value for money of these services to the NHS and associated bodies, their staff and learners. The review has three objectives:

  1. To analyse the existing data to determine whether, and how, the levels of funding are inequitable and whether inequity correlates to diminished quality of service for staff and learners.
  2. To review the current model of funding for Library and Knowledge Services across the NHS in England to determine if the model offers optimum value for money for HEE and NHS bodies.
  3. To present alternative funding models and identify all those organisations which could be co-funding services to reduce inequity and best support the implementation of Knowledge for Healthcare.

The work will answer the following questions:

  • Does the current model result in best use of resources?
  • What alternative models are there?
  • Which NHS bodies does HEE need to work with?
  • Which other non-NHS bodies does HEE need to work with?
  • What can be learned from existing data?
  • What is the relationship between funding and compliance with the NHS Library Quality Assurance Framework (LQAF)?

The work will be guided by the HEE Library and Knowledge Services Leads Equitable Funding Task and Finish Group with Linda Ferguson acting as project manager and is planned to complete in September 2016.

Members of the Task and Finish Group

Helen Bingham – HEE South

Andrew Brown – Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust

Rachel Cooke – Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust

Linda Ferguson (Chair) – HEE North linda.ferguson@nhs.net

Louise Goswami – HEE Kent Surrey and Sussex

Charlie Leppington – Imperial College London

Richard Marriott – HEE East Midlands

With support from Sue Lacey-Bryant, Senior Advisor, Knowledge for Healthcare

LKDN Statistics – what can we learn from them?

I have been trying to turn statistical data from the national collection into information that tells me something about trends and/or the health of our libraries in the south. My thoughts from this exercise may help the Metrics Task and Finish group as one of our next tasks is to review the statistics collection.

First of all I had to decide which of the 139 lines of figures submitted would work well in comparison across the years. I couldn’t compare everything as there probably aren’t enough hours in the day to go through the whole lot, besides which I think a certain boredom factor might intrude on the thinking processes. I worked with Tricia Ellis to decide which lines to include. We wanted some analysis that would identify trends and patterns of progress, investment and activity. We tried to work out which statistics would show our successes and went for 1. Income and expenditure  2. Staffing levels  3. Library activities, i.e. loans from stock, user education sessions, literature searches undertaken, etc. and  4. Changes to library infrastructure, e.g. WI-FI access

These are the specific areas I looked at comparing three years of submissions for the South West: 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15

What did I learn?
Income and Expenditure
 – Library income has not changed very much over this period, some libraries have lost income where staff have moved to other Trusts but this meant that another library in the area then gained that income. However, the non-recurring income has fluctuated wildly, only one library has non-recurring funds which remained fairly static.  For some libraries this may be significant as they rely on these for their service.  I felt that these funding figures didn’t really tell me a lot so I had the idea of looking at the number of users and maybe working out what each library spent per user.

Total number of users – is this an indicator of the busy-ness of the library? Of course this depends on data cleansing – if some libraries do not clear out expired users from their systems they may be over counting memberships.  In order to get a more meaningful comparison of libraries I split them into two groups – small and large libraries based on library staffing figures. I compared memberships with expenditure and was able to work out the average spend per user.   This made me ask a question  – to show value for money should we be increasing our library membership and decreasing our expenditure so that the average spend per user would actually get smaller?
Staffing levels  (wte and staffing mix)  – the data includes library qualifications, other qualifications, none.  I did not pick up on any trends in staffing levels, most remaining static, there are some discrepancies due to reported vacancies.  In the South West over 50% of staff have a professional qualification and are paid on Band 5 or over.  12% of staff have a paraprofessional qualification. I found out that we have had and have maintained a well-qualified set of staff.

Loans from stock  – includes renewals, but there are variants as each library has a different number of loans and renewals allowed. In some libraries book loans to own readers have gone down but overall figures look fairly static showing that our book stock is still of importance to library users. Loans to local networks have gone down slightly as would be expected with the increase in ebooks.  This figure could be an indicator of the importance of the collection to others and shared resources remain vital to the cost effectiveness of libraries and ease of access to our readers.

Copies supplied by other libraries – local networks, British Library, or others – I was looking for trends. Most libraries show a downward trend for document supply but there are exceptions with two or three libraries trending upward.  No conclusions to be drawn here.

Literature searches – total number of mediated searches – are these increasing or decreasing?  In the South West there has been a steady increase which is encouraging as this is one of the areas where some analysis of searches can show how the service impacts on management and clinical decision making.

User education and induction – numbers being made aware of our services. There appears to be a lack of consistency in the way librarians collect these and figures vary greatly – for example, one library has done nearly 5000 inductions in one year whereas all the other libraries have figures nearer to the figure of 700. Two libraries simply can’t supply these figures but don’t say why.  Without comparing membership figures it is hard to tell whether the smaller libraries are doing just as well as the larger ones in providing user education.

Current awareness  – bulletins, blogs, RSS feeds and social media – the number of blogs increased,  RSS feeds figures are static, Social Networking has increased but some Trusts don’t allow libraries to do this so it feels unfair to compare them. As we are simply counting yes or no in this area I can see the activity but this figure does not tell me about outreach or impact. Do library managers analyse the activity in this area to get a more meaningful result?

Journals – print titles, electronic only, print with electronic. Electronic only titles have increased.  Nothing really useful to be learned here so why record it?

Collaborative purchase scheme – figures went up and then back down. Although this collaborative purchases is key to getting good value for money the way we record it doesn’t tell us enough, how many resources were made available to how many libraries through these different schemes?

eBooks  and Databases – these figures don’t have story to tell – why count?

WiFi – most libraries have WiFi now can we now assume that this is the norm and stop counting it?

I would be interested to know if anyone else has tried to get a “story” from the annual statistics collection and if not, are there other statistics that you have used to plan services or make a decision?

Dorothy Curtis
Deputy Library Service Manager
Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS FT
Dorothycurtis@nhs.net