With the new year we present a review of the most commonly reported comments sent to our Quality Team. In 2011, Quality received comments regarding 638 transcripts: 364 (57%) related to sessions handled by librarians from Coop libraries and 274 (43%) related to sessions handled by QP Back Up librarians. Of the 638 sessions sent to Quality, 95 (15%) were compliments! The remaining 543 sessions had at least one, and often multiple, issues. The the most commonly reported issues in 2011, listed in order of frequency, are:
1. Policy Page
Librarian does not check the policy page. This inference arises when the information provided in session by the librarian either ignores or contradicts the information provided on the patron library’s policy page. This was also the most often reported issue in 2009 and 2010.
2. Resolution Code
Incorrect resolution code is assigned. Examples: incorrect use of the “Lost Call” code; librarian coding a session as “Answered” when telling the patron that another librarian will follow up; librarian coding a session for “Follow Up” when patron did not leave an email address.
3. Reference Conversation
Librarian does not properly clarify the question or otherwise engage in the “reference interview”, thus risking miscommunication with the patron.
4. Incorrect information was provided in the session.
In addition to factual errors, this issue refers to any type of "incorrect" piece of information provided during the chat. This issue is often used in conjunction with other issues, for instance if the librarian provides incorrect information regarding a library policy (many times, this happens when the chatting librarian provides an answer based on his own library policies rather than those of the patron’s library: we may code this issue as both “policy page” and “incorrect info”). It also applies if the librarian says "Your librarians have not given me the ability to access your databases, so I cannot help you" but the library did provide a barcode number on the policy page. Or, if a librarian told the patron to use the Academic Search Premier database but the library doesn't subscribe to any EBSCO databases.
-- Compliments!! --
5. Source Choice
This issue arises when librarian could have sent better sources (i.e. more authoritative, more current, more appropriate to the patron's level). For example: Librarian does a Google search or sends a wikipedia article for queries that could better be handled by reference to the library’s online databases or catalog.
6. Contact/Followup Option
With questions of a local nature, the Cooperative librarian may be unable to provide a complete answer to the patron. This is almost always the case when patrons have circulation issues, problems with their library card, etc. Unfortunately, some librarians tell the patron to “contact your library” rather than giving the patron the option to call the library (in which case the chatting librarian should provide the correct phone number, as per the policy page) or offering to code the session for Follow Up.
7. No Searching:
Examples include: patron queries whether the library owns a known item and the librarian tells patron to contact the library rather than searching the library catalog and/or databases.
8. Abrupt Ending
This issue arise when the patron is non-responsive patron and the librarian ends the session without waiting 5 minutes. It can also refer to times when librarians end the session before it appears that the patron is ready to do so.
9. Obtaining Email
Librarian fails to get patron’s email when coding Follow Up, thus making it impossible for the Patron Library to contact the patron.
10. Patron Info
Librarian does not review the Patron Info tab in the chat monitor and thus fails to note the patron’s library. Example: librarian assumes a New York customer is a patron of New York Public Library although the Patron Info tab reveals that patron is affiliated with another library in New York State.
A plea to the Cooperative: Help us with Quality!
Thanks to all for using the 24/7 Reference quality process! By sending sessions to Quality, you not only help us provide guidance when needed to the Coop librarians, but you also help us track issues both for individual libraries and the Cooperative as a whole. And, if you think a Cooperative librarian has done a nice job with one of your patrons’ questions, please send the compliment to Quality. We will pass the compliment along to the chatting librarian, and this helps us keep track of our star libraries. So, don’t hesitate to send a compliment – we love passing those along!
How to send a session to Quality:
In the Ask a Librarian (Ask) module, click the Review Transcripts tab. When viewing the full text of the session, click the “Send to Quality Control” button. Type in any concerns or compliments in the text box, and click submit. The Quality Team will receive your comment with the full transcript, and will respond.
If you have questions about quality, don’t hesitate to email me at mcglames@oclc.org
Comments