比较美国公共图书馆和学术图书馆的医疗应急准备

Q3 Social Sciences Public Services Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-10-02 DOI:10.1080/15228959.2022.2025989
E. Owens
{"title":"比较美国公共图书馆和学术图书馆的医疗应急准备","authors":"E. Owens","doi":"10.1080/15228959.2022.2025989","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study sought to determine what medical emergency resources and training are provided in U.S. public and academic libraries, how public versus academic preparedness compares, and what reasons may contribute to decisions against adoption. Survey responses from 65 libraries were analyzed regarding availability of, plans to acquire, or reasons for not acquiring five interventions—automatic electronic defibrillators (AEDs), naloxone, epinephrine, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training, and mental health crisis training. Findings showed that these interventions were not necessarily common—41.5% of respondents offered zero of the five interventions, while the most common, AED, was available in 52.3% of libraries. AEDs and epinephrine were somewhat more common in academic libraries, but naloxone, CPR training, and mental health crisis training were more common in public libraries. Primary reasons for not adopting medical interventions included alternative emergency response options, cost, concerns regarding legal liability, and the sense that this is outside the scope of a library’s duties. Implications and considerations for library planning are discussed.","PeriodicalId":35381,"journal":{"name":"Public Services Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing medical emergency preparedness in U.S. public and academic libraries\",\"authors\":\"E. Owens\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15228959.2022.2025989\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This study sought to determine what medical emergency resources and training are provided in U.S. public and academic libraries, how public versus academic preparedness compares, and what reasons may contribute to decisions against adoption. Survey responses from 65 libraries were analyzed regarding availability of, plans to acquire, or reasons for not acquiring five interventions—automatic electronic defibrillators (AEDs), naloxone, epinephrine, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training, and mental health crisis training. Findings showed that these interventions were not necessarily common—41.5% of respondents offered zero of the five interventions, while the most common, AED, was available in 52.3% of libraries. AEDs and epinephrine were somewhat more common in academic libraries, but naloxone, CPR training, and mental health crisis training were more common in public libraries. Primary reasons for not adopting medical interventions included alternative emergency response options, cost, concerns regarding legal liability, and the sense that this is outside the scope of a library’s duties. Implications and considerations for library planning are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35381,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Services Quarterly\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Services Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2022.2025989\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Services Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2022.2025989","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在确定美国公共和学术图书馆提供了哪些医疗急救资源和培训,公共和学术准备如何比较,以及哪些原因可能导致不采用。对来自65家图书馆的调查反馈进行了分析,包括自动电子除颤器(aed)、纳洛酮、肾上腺素、心肺复苏(CPR)培训和心理健康危机培训等五种干预措施的可获得性、计划获得或不获得的原因。调查结果显示,这些干预措施并不一定常见——41.5%的受访者没有提供五种干预措施中的任何一种,而最常见的AED在52.3%的图书馆中提供。aed和肾上腺素在学术图书馆更常见,但纳洛酮、心肺复苏术培训和心理健康危机培训在公共图书馆更常见。不采取医疗干预措施的主要原因包括其他应急响应方案、成本、对法律责任的担忧,以及认为这超出了图书馆的职责范围。讨论了图书馆规划的含义和考虑因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparing medical emergency preparedness in U.S. public and academic libraries
Abstract This study sought to determine what medical emergency resources and training are provided in U.S. public and academic libraries, how public versus academic preparedness compares, and what reasons may contribute to decisions against adoption. Survey responses from 65 libraries were analyzed regarding availability of, plans to acquire, or reasons for not acquiring five interventions—automatic electronic defibrillators (AEDs), naloxone, epinephrine, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training, and mental health crisis training. Findings showed that these interventions were not necessarily common—41.5% of respondents offered zero of the five interventions, while the most common, AED, was available in 52.3% of libraries. AEDs and epinephrine were somewhat more common in academic libraries, but naloxone, CPR training, and mental health crisis training were more common in public libraries. Primary reasons for not adopting medical interventions included alternative emergency response options, cost, concerns regarding legal liability, and the sense that this is outside the scope of a library’s duties. Implications and considerations for library planning are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Public Services Quarterly
Public Services Quarterly Social Sciences-Library and Information Sciences
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Public Services Quarterly covers a broad spectrum of public service issues in academic libraries, presenting practical strategies for implementing new initiatives and research-based insights into effective practices. The journal publishes research-based and theoretical articles as well as case studies that advance the understanding of public services, including reference and research assistance, information literacy instruction, access and delivery services, and other services to patrons. Articles may examine creative ways to use technology to assist students and faculty. Practice-based articles should be thoroughly grounded in the literature and should situate the work done in one library into the larger context of the situation.
期刊最新文献
Serving scholars and fans: Marquette University’s J. R. R. Tolkien collection COVID-19 redux: The impacts of the pandemic on academic library services How writing experts understand information literacy: a message to academic librarians Reflecting on 10 years of the PR Xchange Hopeful visions, practical actions: Cultural humility in library work Hopeful visions, practical actions: Cultural humility in library work . Edited by Sarah R. Kostelecky, Lori Townsend, and David A. Hurley. ALA Editions, 2023, xxiii+236 pp., $54.99 (paperback), ISBN 13: 978-0-8389-3830-0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1