{"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}
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.
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.