Information Scotland The Journal of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals in Scotland ISSN 1743-5471 Issue contents | Journal contents | About the online edition of the journal June 2008 Volume 6(3)

Conference: Health information

We have the remedies

Joanna Ptolomey says it is important for the profession to emphasise the evidence of our impact on health information – and other sectors.

At a launch event recently an attendee said quite openly that they felt information professionals were good at organising information but poor at promotion of their skills and ensuring the continuing impact of their resources. A cheap shot perhaps, but there is undoubtedly concern in the profession about status and workers from other sectors taking on library and information roles. I believe that this is a constant problem we as a profession will have to deal with.

Instead of expecting others to change, we need to challenge this perception head-on, with evidence. We also need to be more open about showing our expertise and taking ownership of work that falls into our field of professionalism. We may be constricted by a job description, but it does not define who we are as professionals.
Through my work over the last five years in health inequalities projects, I have seen evidence that we have the skills and expertise to erode comments such as the one above. Furthermore, I believe that these skills are generic to any situation and any information professional.

Health inequalities projects may include a myriad of issues such as human rights, gender, sexual orientation, disability, wealth, housing, mobility, education and literacy, employment, class and aspirations. Health service providers have come to realise that a social model that incorporates health inequalities lies at the heart of any successful delivery model in health and social care. The other key delivery strategy is partnership working, and that now includes a model of Community Health and (Care) Partnerships (CHP’s or CHCP’s).

This all looks good on paper, but the reality can mean a multidisciplinary team all working from slightly different remits and representing different stakeholders. This team may include the doctor, the nurse, the health promotion manager, the art therapist, the nutritionist, the social worker, the addictions worker and the welfare rights officer. With the greatest will in the world it is hard for these group members to find that common thread of evidence that will tie them together. They all have different backgrounds, training & skills levels, and levels of knowledge. Who can save the group from information oblivion, provide evidence for decision-making and realise deliverables with immediate and also longer-term use? Enter the information professional.

We are the Switzerland of health information. We have no axe to grind, we represent the overall goal (e.g. to help develop a service delivery model based on evidence), and our stakeholders are indirectly the people of this nation and their health. We also approach information in a “tidy way”, as a senior health services delivery manager put it to me recently. I believe we have “weapons of mass instruction”; also known as “the reference interview”.

Think of any enquiry work: we always assume that people will ask us for what they think we can do, rather than what we can actually do. We assume that there is something deeper behind what people are telling us; we like to ask open-ended questions and avoid premature diagnosis of the question. We think about hierarchy of evidence and consider possible solutions to help people on their way. We know that spelling out our understanding of the search and our role in it can help people to clarify what they are trying to say. We understand that we are not health professionals; our business is as information professionals.

Getting to the real nub of the problem is difficult as people usually ask for what they believe is available: “…you know, the report that came out last year by the BMA...” is likely to be the report that came out four years ago by the Kings Fund. We know to ask whether they are looking for different levels of evidence and when a grey literature search would be most advantageous. And, by the way, do they know what grey literature is and that it can be the most powerful arsenal in their evidence model?

We need to be bold. In a multidisciplinary group, the information professional needs to focus on what you can deliver, not what people think you are able to do. Take ownership of your ability to help realise goals.
You will always be measured by your actions. So prepare to take action, work out what you can provide to help the group achieve its goals – and deliver it.

Can we measure impact? In this group situation I believe you can. Did you provide the evidence for making decisions, did you provide evidence for gaps in knowledge, did you provide a ready-to-use resource and is the group closer to a service delivery model?

The information professional does make a difference in transforming health information services and not just in the field of health inequalities. If we stick to taking ownership of our profession, making it relevant, and being measured by our actions, then we will succeed.

Joanna Ptolomey e: info@joannaptolomey.co.uk is an independent information professional & librarian based in Glasgow. She is Chair of SHINE, the Scottish Health Information Network. This article is based on her session at ‘Transforming Health Information Services’, a SHINE, SLIC & CILIPS one-day seminar at the CILIPS Annual Conference.

Information Scotland Vol. 6(3) June 2008

Information Scotland is delivered online by the SAPIENS electronic publishing service based at the Centre for Digital Library Research. SLAINTE (Scottish libraries across the Internet) offers further information about librarianship and information management in Scotland.