Search results

By historicizing the broader system of education contextualized under the 45th presidential administration, this paper aims to provide a nuanced discussion regarding the condition of information literacy and librarianship as capitalist institutions in service to the state. In response, tools to oppose systemic racism and minimize harm in the classroom as well as recommendations for change and resistance are addressed.

The paper focuses on historical analysis of libraries as institutions within larger educational systems and draws heavily on critical theories as a method of critique.

This paper demonstrates that the 45th presidential administration is a logical progression of neoliberalism and institutionalized discrimination, which has had adverse effects on the health and safety of (primarily marginalized) students, library workers and library practice, but that critical reflection and information seeking on part of librarians may provide solutions.

This paper can be used as a guide for librarians seeking to contextualize the educational environment and apply a critical praxis to information literacy programs.

The reflection presented in this paper can aid in expanding awareness in LIS surrounding issues of equity and justice, and impart urgency and need for institutional change.

Given the lack of diversity in library and information science, this paper provides critical interventions for information literacy practice. The authors’ unique practical and theoretical backgrounds allow for nuanced discussion and pedagogical creation which directly impacts and addresses key issues of justice and equity in the classroom.

The purpose of this paper is to examine an audit that was performed of all patients referred to a liaison psychiatry inpatient consultation service which sought to establish a baseline for demographics, type of referral, and management of referrals, with a view to introducing improved evidence‐based treatments. It also aims to examine timeliness of response to referrals benchmarked against published standards.

All inpatient referrals to a liaison psychiatry service were recorded over a six‐month period, including demographics, diagnosis, management and timeliness of response to referrals. The data were retrospectively analysed and compared against international standards.

A total of 172 referrals were received in the six months. Commonest referral reasons included assessments regarding depressive disorders (23.8 per cent), delirium/other cognitive disorders (19.2 per cent), alcohol‐related disorders (18.6 per cent), anxiety disorders (14.5 per cent), and risk management (12.2 per cent). Evidence‐based practices were not utilised effectively for a number of different types of presentations. A total of 40.1 per cent of referrals were seen on the same day, 75.4 per cent by the end of the next day, and 93.4 per cent by the end of the following day.

Use of a hospital protocol for management of delirium may improve outcomes for these patients. Evidence‐based techniques, such as brief intervention therapies, may be beneficial for referrals involving alcohol dependence. Referrals were seen reasonably quickly, but there is room for improvement when compared with published standards.

This paper provides valuable information for those involved in management of liaison psychiatry consultation services, providing ideas for development and implementation of evidence based practices.