Tag Archives: Early Adopters Pilot

Expert Search Early Adopters pilot – training evaluation

In mid-September 2020, HEE began a pilot to understand how best to help LKS in England move from using HDAS to using provider interfaces (EBSCOhost, Proquest and Ovid – see here for further detail: https://kfh.libraryservices.nhs.uk/resourcediscovery/frequently-asked-questions-2/)

We’re now heading towards the end of the project and are currently analysing all of the data we’ve collected so we can pull together a report with recommendations for moving forward. Today we’re sharing some of the results from our training evaluation survey – the valuable feedback we’ve collected from pilot participants will shape the way training is rolled out to the rest of LKS in preparation for migration from HDAS to provider interfaces.

Training was offered by all three interface providers (EBSCO, Proquest and Ovid). The team at University of Cambridge Medical Library also very kindly provided online training that was open to all pilot participants, regardless of geographical region. All of the training sessions were recorded and made available to those who couldn’t attend the live sessions. Of the 68 participants who completed the training evaluation survey, 93% had attended some training as part of the pilot.

When asked if the training provided meant that participants felt ready to switch from using HDAS to provider interfaces for literature searching, the responses were split pretty much equally, with 51% answering yes and 49% answering no. We asked for further detail to help clarify the issues around preparedness, as this will be key to helping staff feel confident about moving from HDAS. Those who had answered ‘yes’ said that a) the training sessions were a good starting point, and that they were ready to dive in and start practicing (38%), or b) they already had some familiarity with provider interfaces and so the training acted as a refresher (34%). The responses for those who answered ‘no’ were more difficult to categorise. There was a feeling that the training on its own was not enough, that people needed time to consolidate their learning and practice. There were also comments about the need for follow up sessions so that there was an opportunity to ask questions and share experiences after the initial sessions.

When asked what they would like to change about the training offered, 68% of participants said that the timing of sessions needed to be earlier. There were definitely slippages in the timing of the whole project, and we appreciate that the training schedule didn’t fit with the expectations of the pilot participants. We know from other comments that people needed time to process what they had learnt, to practice searching so they could increase their familiarity with interfaces and also to have a chance to come back to training if they need to. All of the sessions were demonstrations with time for questions, and 10% of participants would have liked hands on training, where there’s a chance to try a live search for yourself. However, there was a recognition that could be difficult in an online format.

There was a marked difference in the feedback for the training delivered by provider representatives and the sessions held by the University of Cambridge Medical Library. Although satisfaction levels were not drastically different, participants commented positively on the content and structure of the Cambridge sessions. Their training focussed on taking a search from start to finish in an interface, whereas participants felt that the interface providers were demonstrating functionality and features that weren’t necessarily relevant to the search process.

The next blog post for the pilot will be sharing some of the results from the data we’ve collected around ‘post-switch’ searches – those carried out in provider interfaces. Participants captured information about 296 searches, which is a fantastic resource for us to draw from.

For any questions about the project, please email Emily.hurt@lthtr.nhs.uk.

Emily Hurt, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Vicky Price, Vicky Price Consulting

Expert Search Early Adopters pilot – pre-switch search data

In mid-September HEE began a pilot to understand how best to help LKS in England move from using HDAS to using provider interfaces (EBSCOhost, Proquest and Ovid – see here for further detail: https://kfh.libraryservices.nhs.uk/resourcediscovery/frequently-asked-questions-2/)

Phase one of data collection ended in November 2020 and we’re able to share some of the results from our survey around pre-switch searches (carried out primarily on HDAS). This was undertaken to capture ‘normal’ search behaviour, so we could do some comparing and contrasting with searches carried out on provider interfaces after the pilot groups switched. The data collected is a great snapshot of search activity and is fascinating reading if you’re interested in search behaviour.

We had 68 searches recorded during this phase. We asked participants to briefly describe their search – purpose, level of complexity etc. As expected, topics were wide ranging and search requesters were from a multitude of staff groups.

The most frequently used resources were HDAS Medline (76% of searches), HDAS CINAHL (63% of searches) and HDAS EMBASE (50% of searches). Results were collated using reference management for 13% of searches, and Endnote Desktop was the most frequently used reference management tool.

Exactly 50% of searches were completed in a single session and the other 50% over multiple sessions. The time it took to complete a search varied wildly, with the shortest taking just 20 minutes and the longest 15 hours – this was a search to support a systematic review. There were two searches captured that fitted into the systematic review category, and as their times vastly skewed the average search time they were removed from calculations. With the remaining 66 searches the average time to complete was 2 hours 51 minutes, with most taking between 1-2 hours or 2-3 hours (44% and 29% respectively).

We asked participants to tell us what had gone well with their search, what didn’t go so well, and what changes could be made to improve their search experience. Things that worked well included being able to search multiple resources without switching interfaces, being able to collate results and search history into one document for the search requester, and searches where the topic was straightforward and therefor easy to find results for. There were common issues around glitches in HDAS, de-duplicating results and the search topic either proving difficult to search for, or being outside of the scope of the databases available to the searcher. Possible improvements included increased stability (fewer interface glitches), less scrolling and a cleaner interface, and having access to reference management software to de-duplicate and collate results.

Finally we asked people to rate their search experience a star rating, where 1 is poor and 5 is excellent. The average rating was 3.7, with 34% rating 3 stars, 42% rating 4 stars and 21% rating 5 stars.

Phase two of data collection is now well under way, and we are asking participants to fill out a similar survey for any searches they carry out on one specific day of their working week. We’ll be sharing the results from this phase over the next few months.

For any questions about the project, please email Emily.hurt@lthtr.nhs.uk.

Emily Hurt
Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Vicky Price
Vicky Price Consulting