Helen Alexandra Wesson, CEBIS Specialist
Amber Dunlop, CEBIS Specialist
Bridget O’Connell, CEBIS Specialist
Imrana Ghumra, Head of Library and Knowledge Services
UHCW Library & Knowledge Services
Clinical Sciences Library
Clifford Bridge Road
This paper provides a brief summary of the results from the Clinical Evidence Based Information Service (CEBIS) COVID-19 updates survey.
CEBIS aims to provide best available evidence at the point of care to ensure that all practice at University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire (UHCW) is evidence based. CEBIS usually produces evidence searches based on requests; however, due to the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and the vast changes required across the Trust to manage it, the CEBIS team took a proactive approach to provide evidence to all clinical departments.
From March-June 2020 (with continuing work where some departments still want to receive the updates), CEBIS had 123 referrals relating directly to the COVID-19 pandemic i.e. where clinicians either requested, or where CEBIS Specialists proactively provided, COVID-19 updates throughout the lockdown and beginnings of restoration. CEBIS Specialists therefore prioritised COVID-19 referrals during this period as a result of the volume with only urgent patient specific referrals receiving a quicker turnaround time.
As a new approach to the CEBIS way of working, the team wanted to gauge how useful this significant input of time and resource had been to clinicians in their clinical work with COVID-19 positive patients. It also gave us a picture of further work generated as a result of new interest and knowledge about the service resulting from the COVID-19 work.
The survey was conducted via email over a 2 week period in July 2020.
Aim of the survey
The ultimate aim of the survey was for CEBIS to understand if and how the service helped clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as how the service can help clinicians in the future; this may also indicate areas for improvement.
How the COVID-19 information was sought
Where the survey received 13 responses, there was a virtual 50/50 split in those who received an update as the result of a request they had sent (6/13) or those who received a proactive update (7/13)
How useful were the COVID-19 updates?
Most (11, or 84% of respondents) said they had used either most (7, or 53% of respondents) or all (4, or 31%) of the information in the updates.
This suggests the uptake of the information in the updates was high and therefore particularly useful to clinical staff.
What were the updates used for?
In total, 19 responses were received from 11 respondents to this question where this was set as multiple choice. This suggests that the updates were utilised for several purposes.
Figure 1 below presents the number of responses to each response option according to the number of respondents.
As the chart presents, most said they had used the updates to ‘keep up to date with the emerging clinical situation.’ Half of the respondents said they had used it for ‘updating clinical guidelines, SOPs, COPs, Patient directives.’ Two had used the updates for patient care. Three respondents said they had used the updates either for CPD, publishing a paper, or service change and development to accommodate the change in service delivery (1 response each). Two responses in the ‘Other’ category described how they had either forwarded the updates to colleagues (thus potentially having a wider utility than just to the person it was originally sent to), or to update latest evidence as part of their role working in an external society’s education committee.
The COVID-19 work and contact development, as well as the survey results has generated impact case studies. These will illustrate how CEBIS providing COVID-19 evidence updates impacted on clinicians work and the quality of care for our patients as well as supporting the Trust.
CEBIS website link
Follow CEBIS on Twitter @UHCW_CEBIS