PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12398254

Standards for hospital libraries 2002.

Abstract

The Medical Library Association's "Standards for Hospital Libraries 2002" have been developed as a guide for hospital administrators, librarians, and accrediting bodies to ensure that hospitals have the resources and services to effectively meet their needs for knowledge-based information. Specific requirements for knowledge-based information include that the library be a separate department with its own budget. Knowledge-based information in the library should be directed by a qualified librarian who functions as a department head and is a member of the Academy of Health Information Professionals. The standards define the role of the medical librarian and the links between knowledge-based information and other functions such as patient care, patient education, performance improvement, and education. In addition, the standards address the development and implementation of the knowledge-based information needs assessment and plans, the promotion and publicity of the knowledge-based information services, and the physical space and staffing requirements. The role, qualifications, and functions of a hospital library consultant are outlined. The health sciences library is positioned to play a key role in the hospital. The increasing use of the Internet and new information technologies by medical, nursing, and allied health staffs; patients; and the community require new strategies, strategic planning, allocation of adequate resources, and selection and evaluation of appropriate information resources and technologies. The Hospital Library Standards Committee has developed this document as a guideline to be used in facing these challenges.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jeannine Cyr Gluck, Robin Ackley Hassig, Leeni Balogh, Margaret Bandy, Jacqueline Donaldson Doyle, Michael R Kronenfeld, Katherine Lois Lindner, Kathleen Murray, JoAn Petersen, Debra C Rand. 2002. Standards for hospital libraries 2002.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12398254/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

UK national survey of enucleation, evisceration and orbital implant trends.

AIM: To evaluate current clinical practice in the UK in the management of the anophthalmic socket; choice of enucleation, evisceration, type of orbital implant, wrap, motility pegging and complications. METHODS: All consultant ophthalmologists in the UK were surveyed by postal questionnaire. Questions included their practice subspecialty and number of enucleations and eviscerations performed in 2003. Specific questions addressed choice of implant, wrap, motility pegging and complications. RESULTS: 456/896 (51%) consultants responded, of which 162 (35%) had a specific interest in oculoplastics, lacrimal, orbits or oncology. Only 243/456 (53%) did enucleations or eviscerations. 92% inserted an orbital implant after primary enucleation, 69% after non-endophthalmitis evisceration, whereas only 43% did so after evisceration for endophthalmitis (50% as a delayed procedure). 55% used porous orbital implants (porous polyethylene, hydroxyapatite or alumina) as their first choice and 42% used acrylic. Most implants inserted were spherical, sized 18-20 mm in diameter. 57% wrapped the implant after enucleation, using salvaged autogenous sclera (20%), donor sclera (28%) and synthetic Vicryl or Mersilene mesh (42%). A minority (7%) placed motility pegs in selected cases, usually as a secondary procedure. 14% of respondents reported implant exposure for each type of procedure and extrusion was reported by 4% after enucleation and 3% after evisceration. CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights contemporary anophthalmic socket practice in the UK. Most surgeons use porous orbital implants with a synthetic wrap after enucleation and only few perform motility pegging.

Consultants↗