In search engines on November 3, 2009 by africker Tagged: microsoft, NHS Evidence, NLH
So NHS Evidence has been upgraded? Lets have a look.
The first thing that leaps to the eye (ahem) is that the site is broken in IE6. Navigation menus are not aligned, the search box has drifted off to the right and the results display is variously squashed or overflowing into the wrong section of the page. This is something of an issue given that most of the NHS still lives in a retro world of IE6 (Copyright Microsoft 1995-2004). I am sure it will be resolved soon (and it works fine with Chrome) but testing against IE6 must be an essential for any site deployment aimed at NHS users.
What about the changes that were actually desired?
The accreditated sources of guidance have started to come on stream and have a slightly stretched mini eye to advertise themselves in the results. This is visually clear but practically confusing (see the widely distributed quote from the Minister which only adds to the potential confusion). A search for diabetes reveals lots of accredited source hits – but down at number 25 is Sign Publication No55 Management of Diabetes. This does not carry the logo even though SIGN is one of the three bodies currently authorised to use it. Why? It might be the age of the item (2001) or some other factor. Certainly it will be confusing to the end user.
A facility to rate results has been added with a Likert scale followed by a free text box for opinions. You do not have to be logged in with the new My Evidence section to use this so there is no mechanism for feeding back to those who contribute comments in this way. I wonder how much use this will receive? It is definitely worth a try as developers and may garner some useful feedback.
The final obvious major change (there may be some subtle ones I have missed) is My Evidence.
It will be interesting to see the level of take up of this facility (and to consider the levels of usage that the old MyLibrary facility on NLH attracted). James Robertson in his excellent book “What every Intranet team should know” advances that experience shows only 5-10% of users will make use of personalisation features.
My Evidence offers a means to save NHS Evidence searches and set up alerts from those searches. This seems to work OK. My test search generated an enormous and unrealistic number of hits for the first week but I guess this might be expected. My Evidence also offers the ability to save a result which is a welcome addition. This currently lacks the means to subsequently manage these results (folders, tags etc?) which will be necessary for this function to remain useful as more documents are added.
Less convincing is the My News Feeds feature. This is a fairly locked down RSS reader. You can only add feeds from a very limited directory (most categories were empty when I had a look). When you do add them you have no control over how many entries are displayed or how much content you see initially. You also cannot save any of the results that are particularly interesting for later reference. In many ways it is a more limited version of the similarly unconvincing offer included in MyLibrary on NLH.
You can also add an optional profile. There is however no justification given at present as to why you would want to. Perhaps social tools will follow that will make this a more worthwhile feature?
My Evidence use a widget model so it is to be hoped that more options and control will be progressively given to the user. If the iGoogle model is followed you could create a useful alternative starting point for people. Hopefully the next iteration of NHS Evidence will see the addition of a HLISD widget that would allow end users to find their closest library or information service.
The final thing of note is the authentication route. NHS Evidence have chosen to require a new registration from users. It is to be hoped that Athens will also be enabled in a future version. Across the NHS the push is to reduce the number of logins required. By linking to Athens the route to paid for content could be smoothed. Athens also links people to organisations and roles which would be a useful way to potentially segment and tailor features on the site. Not using Athens does have the advantage of allowing anyone to register and is no doubt administratively less burdensome. One way forward might be the model adopted by BMJLearning where you can link your site login to your Athens login.
In search engines on September 24, 2009 by africker Tagged: bodge, custom search, google toolbar, NHS Evidence
For some reason I have held out till now against installing Google Toolbar - more fool me. It really is very handy.
On starting to play with it I immediately thought – I wish I could use this to launch a search on resource of the moment – NHS Evidence. And what do you know – you can add new search targets.
Once you have Google Toolbar installed you just go to the search engine you want to add – right click in the search box and select “Generate Custom Search”.
Well – that is the theory. In practice my first run at it added a button to my toolbar but all it did was send me to NHS Evidence and add my search terms in the box ready to hit search. I wasn’t satisfied with that so I bodged about with the code a bit and got this.
<?xml version=”1.0″ encoding=”utf-8″?>
<custombuttons xmlns=”http://toolbar.google.com/custombuttons/“>
<button>
<search method=”post” charset=”utf-8″>http://www.evidence.nhs.uk/Search.aspx?t={query}</search>
<title>NHS Evidence</title>
<description>NHS Evidence</description>
</button>
</custombuttons>
So once you have added your initial (not quite right) search button – right click on it – select NHS Evidence Button Options – click on advanced – and replace the code with the above and save to the toolbar.
Bingo. It still isn’t perfect by any means – if you try and do a subsequent search from the box at the top of your results you get sent back to the NHS Evidence home page. And the icon is just a blob – though as a blue blob it looks a little like the Liquorice Allsort of doom that is the NHS Evidence logo.
I know NHSE are planning to create a smart Google style tool bar but in the mean time this does the job fine. If they like they could set up a button that works properly (I am sure this would actually be pretty easy) and host an “add this to my Google Toolbar” link.
If anyone can fix my bodge to work better (or hosts an “add this to my Toolbar link” - let me know and I will update this post accordingly.
In Web 2.0 & all that on September 24, 2009 by africker Tagged: medical students, slang, social networking, web 2.0
Coverage from BBC news of an article in JAMA on tweeting medical students.
No great shock to read that medical students (in common with swathes of the population at large) may not always think through the wisdom of what they post. Given the responsibility held by medics it has the potential to be the new medical slang scandal with lots of angst in the media.
More interesting perhaps is a snap shot of online participation by medical students
The majority of respondents were daily users of the Internet for e-mail and similar communications (99%; 70/71), as well as Web surfing (71%; 50/70). Web 2.0 use was less common. Most respondents reported never or rarely using social networking sites (68%; 48/71), reading blogs (79%; 56/71), posting on blogs (87%; 61/70), reading wikis (69%; 48/70), or writing on wikis (91%; 64/70).
Slightly confusing presentation of the stats. I am not sure I agree with the interpretation – it would help to know the levels of never vs rarely. It would also help to know what the alternative statements were – often, daily, hourly? 9% writing on wikis at least more than rarely seems strikingly high to me given the usual levels of online participation with many more viewing than writing.
In search engines on September 23, 2009 by africker Tagged: google, HospitalDr, Jerry Nelson, nhs choices, patient information, SEO, Wikipedia
I am alerted by Hospital Doctor to an article in the latest issue of Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Firstly – what a pleasure it is to see Hospital Doctor revived (all be it as a website only). Fans of Jerry Nelson in particular will welcome him back.
The article in Annals examines the extent to which use of the Internet by patients tends to increase anxiety. There are some unsurprising findings – the older the patient the lower the probability they will have used the Internet for example. Most people (79%) were pleased with the quality of what they found. 26% were left anxious / confused. Problems with results from Google searches are discussed. All fairly reasonable stuff.
The proposed solution is interesting – “regulated, comprehensible patient information on hospital websites”. The Hospital Doctor post points at the pages offered by the RCSE themselves. Unmentioned is NHS Choices (includes health information previously offered by NHS Direct). A quick search on that site with the terms proposed by the article returns high quality, NHS approved, patient targeted materials (even a video explaining how a hernia happens and is treated).
So we are getting there – the task is to make sure the patients (and the clinicians) both know where to look. NHS Choices is the 5th hit on Google for inguinal hernia behind bupa and wikipedia. While we are all aware that Google believes wikipedia is the answer to most questions (to the point that someone has created a Firefox plugin to search Google sans wikipedia) you have to wonder if the NHS shouldn’t try and out SEO Bupa.
In search engines on September 18, 2009 by africker Tagged: libraries, NHS Evidence
As part of a pattern of missed opportunity comes the latest article promoting NHS Evidence.
The notes from the NHS Evidence update to the latest NICE Board show we can expect lots more of this kind of thing over the coming months with articles to be placed in publications and a wide presence at conferences (including the three major UK political party conferences).
The article itself is positive about NHS Evidence as you might expect. Some would suggest that it reads a little too like a press release to be entirely comfortably presented as “Double-blind peer reviewed”. It is interesting to put the satisfaction of the author in contrast to the recent post here. It is a little strange to read trailers for features that are not yet present on the site.
An earlier article in E-health-insider provoked several frank comments and, ultimately, a reply from Dr Leng (NHS Evidence COO). The Nursing Times article is certainly a step forward on that one in the accuracy stakes.
So what is missing from NHS Evidence promotion (and this latest article)? The answer is of course recognition that NHS Evidence users are not alone in facing the challenge of finding the information they need. No mention of the network of skilled professionals who help those NHS staff on a daily basis. The L word is not to be uttered.
There is some progress – the latest issue of Eyes on Evidence (NHS Newsletter number 5) does recognise that a librarian might be a good person to ask for help (in response to a request for someone to do a search for them). But fails to make the link to any of the ways people might find that librarian. This is a step forward on a previous issue which answered the FAQ – How do I search for journal articles? Answer – this is how to sign up for Athens. Not really what they asked and a question crying out for the L word answer.
I hope NHS Evidence will soon overcome this seeming aversion to placing itself in the context of the wider NHS knowledge environment. It is to the disadvantage of the people it seeks to help if it does not.
In How to work better on September 2, 2009 by africker Tagged: blackberry, Futurology, iPhone, PDAs, smart phones
I have been spending a fair bit of time lately thinking about the future and what shape the service I deliver should take.
There are loads of interesting things to consider on this (see David Rothman for example) and some perhaps less interesting (see this 2009 report on emerging trends in special libraries in New Zealand Ralph and Sibthorpe - loads of research literature but less that grabbed me - it does also need to do some basic fact checking CILIP is not ASLIB and has rather more than 700 members.)
The Krafty Librarian writes a timely post for me then on Medical Apps and Phones. We have toyed with support for PDA use in the past (Leicester have done good things here as they often do) but they seem to be a tool on the way out - convergence and all that jazz.
KraftyLibrarian discusses Blackberry versus iPhone and how they might hang together with IT support in the hospital. Looking around my own hospital there seems to have been an explosion in Blackberry use of late. They are largely in the hands of managers (including clinical managers). It is harder to judge iPhone penetration but I have rescued at least one clinician from a Black Screen of Death and seen plenty of them around. As users shift to nhs.net email addresses it seems likely more people will increasingly use their web enabled phones to access work email.
Now that we have largely accepted that using a mobile in most clinical environments is not going to lead to major issues we have to expect that the screens in peoples pockets are going to be a major service point for us. Time to start testing those websites/ opacs, looking at the content and an excuse to get a new toy…
In Web 2.0 & all that on July 1, 2009 by africker Tagged: web 2.0, public libraries, NHS Evidence, promotion
I regularly suffer from promotion envy when other folk have much slicker promotional materials / concepts than me. The latest dose has been caused by this lovely campaign in the states promoting the public library service – Geek the Library (alerted by this post at It’s all good).
One of the key things for me is the combination of linking peoples passions to the ability to learn more about them through the library. The use of web 2.0 type sites gives a way to be involved and hopefully generate some discussion and improve awareness amongst a younger audience.
As an avid public library user I would love to see something like this in the UK. I have geeked all manner of things via my public library.
On the health informatics side I noticed that NHS Evidence recruited a whole stack of marketing / promotion / brand management types. They will almost certainly have more capacity in this area than NHS Libraries have ever even contemplated (more promotion envy). Should there be a lesson for all parts of the library community?
In Website reviews on May 5, 2009 by africker Tagged: enterprise search, literature searching, NHS Evidence, search, state of the blogosphere
As previously reported on this blog – NHS Evidence has now gone live. So what do people think so far? Ben Toth likes it. Fade have put together a quick search guide. Otherwise blog coverage tends to just be announcements that it has gone live with some idea of what you might find if you follow the link.
The giant blue eye will take some getting used to. I await the blue coconut ring liquorice allsort promotional items with impatience.
Search itself is fast and, on early testing, provides good results. Results for a search on a health management topic were excellent with an impressive selection of relevant fulltext source documents retrieved (With SCIE Online to the fore) . The filters / navigators are a good idea but will need careful examination to be clear on how they work.
Output options are currently limited but this is in line with the style of searching NHS Evidence is set up to support ie immediate satisfaction. Worth noting is the fact that all search terms and settings are present in the URL returned post search and it is infact this that is shared if you try and email results.
A good development would be inclusion of search terms in the page title element (a well known search engine does this). This would constitute a simple visible history for searchers.
The links through to the rebadged Health Information Resources (AKA the National Library for Health) are a little clumsy in terms of the way they manage the Athens journey. The link for Athens login, for example, places the user at the registration form with a small section of text for those already registered. These flows will definitely be improved as the site develops.
A useful future development would be some background thesaurus mapping (similar to the complexity hidden by a simple search in PubMed). This would be particularly useful if it could support disambiguation to prevent some of the pitfalls of keyword based searching.
A promising start.
In Uncategorized on April 20, 2009 by africker Tagged: Fast Search, libraries, NHS Evidence, NICE, NLH
Well here we are – peering towards the 30th of April and the arrival of NHS Evidence (NB – Site not live at time of writing). So what do we know?
A fair amount in some ways.
NICE have a good culture about minutes appearing in public so we can track the progress of developments both through the regular updates to the NICE Board and the minutes of the NHS Evidence Advisory Committee.
We can also follow the progress of the Accreditation Scheme. This will see organisations accredited rather than particular documents (a similar model to the Plain English Campaign).
We know about the search technology selected – Fast Search. And we can see it in action in a health setting North of the Border. Thus far reports from those who have tested NHSE are positive.
We know a bit about the visual style - blue, less cluttered and with a strong visual logo (I haven’t seen this in the wild yet so I won’t spoil the surprise).
An email to librarians brings the welcome news that mooted plans to redirect www.library.nhs.uk on to the new domain with effect from the 30th no longer appear to be in effect. This is a good decision as it would have been a confusing way to transition the users of NLH and gives those working directly with end users a chance to familiarise themselves with the new set up.
One of the decisions I am less sure about is to change the name of the Specialist Libraries to Specialist Collections. There is a general purge of the stem librar* underway. I think this is in part due to a concern that “libraries are for librarians” (see page 5 NHSEAC Minutes for March 09). I have been trying to think of a good analogy – perhaps that restaurants need to be renamed as otherwise people might think they were only for the cooks and waiters who work there – or swimming pools as perhaps these are only for the life guards? Regardless I am far from convinced that a Specialist Collection sounds like a label less likely to exclude.
I will be looking for the killer analogy I failed to come up with in the comments…
