Coffee Connect - Meet Someone New, Share Something Useful!

When did you last have a work conversation with someone completely outside your usual circle?

You probably work with the same 5-10 people every day.

You know your immediate team inside out. You grab lunch with the same colleagues. You solve problems with the same faces around the table.

And that's... fine. But limiting.

Because somewhere else in this trust:

• Someone has already solved the problem you're struggling with
• Someone has expertise you need but don't know exists
• Someone is working on something that complements your work perfectly
• Someone would be a brilliant collaborator if only you knew each other

Coffee Connect (also known as a randomised coffee trial) exists to make those connections happen. It is one of the tools used for mobilising knowledge in the NHS. Everyone has valuable knowledge. Coffee Connect facilitates the sharing.

The magic is in the randomness. You don't choose who you meet. You don't filter by department or profession or seniority. You get matched with someone you'd never have encountered in your normal working life.

How It Works

Step 1: Sign Up (Deadline: 12th December)

Complete our quick (1-2 minutes) expression of interest form here with:

• Your name and email address
• Your role and department

Step 2: Get Matched (Week of 15th December)

We will randomly pair you with someone from a different area.  We aim to match:

• Different departments (not your own)
• Different professions where possible
• Different sites if practical
• Different levels of seniority (mix it up!)

You will receive an email with:

• Your match's name, role, and department
• Their contact details (email and Teams)
• Optional conversation starters (if you want them)
• Tips for a great Coffee Connect conversation

Step 3: Make Contact (January/February 2026)

Either of you can reach out first. Send a friendly email or Teams message:

"Hi [Name], we've been matched for Coffee Connect! I'd love to find 30 minutes for a chat. What times work for you next week?"

Flexible scheduling is key. Find a time that suits you both - could be morning, lunchtime, or afternoon/evening.

Step 4: Meet for Coffee (30 minutes)

Choose your format:

Microsoft Teams (Most popular)

• No travel time
• Works across sites
• Easy to schedule
• Can share screens if discussing tools/resources

In Person (If you're on the same site)

• More personal
• Actual coffee!
• Face-to-face connection
• Might bump into others

Either works. It's about the conversation, not the format.

Step 5: Connect & Share

30 minutes flies by when you're having a good conversation.

Sign Up Now

Coffee Connect sign-ups close 12th December 2025

👉 Expression of interest form: Coffee Connect - expression of interest – Fill in form

Questions? Email  mtw-tr.clinical.libarians@nhs.net

 

Getting your research published: A guide

Support from your Library Service

Introduction

Publishing your research is an essential part of professional practice and contributes to the evidence base in healthcare. This guide, created by your Library and Knowledge Services team, provides practical support and resources to help navigate the publication process.

 

1.     Choosing the Right Journal

·        Think about which journals you and your colleagues read – If you attend a journal club or reflective reading club, which journals are articles often picked from?

·        Your professional body may have journals to consider – the Royal College of Nursing (RCN)/ Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) may have suggestions

·        Who is the audience of your work? Is your research clinical, academic, or policy focused?

·        Is there a pattern to the journals your reference in your work? Looking through your own references, are there any commonly referenced journals?

·        Check a journals scope – Does it publish studies like yours?

Library hints and tips: There are tools online to help your choose a journal: Journal finder (Elsevier), Jane (Journal/Author Name Estimator) or DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals)

 

2.     Understanding Journal Metrics

·        Impact factor - The impact factor (IF) or journal impact factor (JIF) is defined as the total number of citations in the past year which were of items published in the journal over the previous two years, divided by the number of “citable items” published at the time. The IF may indicate the quality or significance of a journal, but shouldn’t be considered without other factors. The calculation averaged out any difference between individual papers so can be a misleading representation of the journal as a whole.

 

3.     Avoiding Predatory Journals

·        What is a predatory journal? - Predatory journals deceive authors by claiming to provide peer review and editorial services but in fact publishing anything submitted without proper scrutiny.  Predatory journals use a number of strategies to disguise their true nature, however, with a few precautions and checks it is possible to identify and avoid them.

·        Identifying a predatory journal - A predatory journal/publisher may display one or more of these characteristics:

§  A journal title which can be easily confused with another journal or is misleading

§  Displays of unofficial impact factors

§  False claims of being indexed in major services like PubMed or DOAJ

§  No clear information e.g. publisher address or contact information, no editorial board listed, no information on the policies of the journal, such as peer review, licensing and copyright, or charging 

§  Spams researchers with many emails inviting submissions,

§  Advertises very fast times from submission to publication

§  Publishes out-of-scope articles

§  Publishes nonsense articles

§  No named editorial board or fake affiliations

§  Poor or non-existent editing of articles (many spelling mistakes or very poor grammar)

Library hints and tips: We can help you vet journals using Cabell’s Predatory Reports or Think. Check. Submit. (www.thinkchecksubmit.org )

 

4.     Open Access and APCs (Article Processing Charges)

·        Open Access(OA) – OA publishing enables free and unrestricted access to the research outputs from publicly-funded work. Open access allows all to read published research papers as well as search and re-use the content of papers.

Pros

§  Articles and papers are more accessible

§  Articles have a wider reach

§  May increase citations

§  Often required by funders (e.g. NIHR)

Cons

§  It may involve the payment of an article processing charge (APC) to the publisher so that the article is immediately publicly accessible on a publisher’s website.

Library hints and tips: see Peter Suber, Open Access Overview (definition, introduction)

 

5.     Navigating Author Guidelines

·        Read the journals ‘Instructions for Authors’ before submitting

·        Pay attention to:

§  Word count limits

§  Referencing style

§  Structure (e.g IMRAD- Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion)

§  Ethical declarations and data sharing requirements

§  Number of tables/ figures allowed

Library hints and tips: we can help interpret complex submission guidelines and formatting requirements

 

6.     Manuscript Preparation, Preparing Cover Letters and Responding to Revisions

·        Manuscript- Follow the standard structure (title, abstract, main text, references, key words). Use reporting guidelines (E.g. CONSORT, PRISMA).

·        Cover letter: brief, polite and professional- explain why the article fits the journal and highlight key contributions

·        Revisions: revisions aren’t uncommon so don’t be put off if you’re asked to revise your work

§  Address all reviewer comments systematically

§  Use a response table to track changes

§  Be professional and polite, even when you disagree

Library hits and tips: Use the EQUATOR Network to find the right reporting guideline. we can review cover letters and help structure your response to reviewers

 

7.     Authorship and ICMJE Guidelines

·        Authorship should be based on:

§  Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND

§  Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND

§  Final approval of the version to be published; AND

§  Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) offers clear criteria – consult it to avoid disputes.

Library hints and tips: we can help you locate guidance on ethical authorship practices to resolve questions around acknowledgements Vs authorship

 

8.     Using AI tools for Support

·        How can AI tools help with publishing?

§  Proof reading tools

§  Grammar checking tools

§  Reference formatting

·        Be cautious!: Always double-check AI- generated content for accuracy. Be aware of copyright when using AI.

 

9.     How the Library Can Help You

·        Your library service is here to support you at every stage:

§  Literature searching

§  Proof reading search strategies

§  Journal selection

§  1:1 consultations

§  Help with cover letters, revisions and publication strategy

·        We have created a Padlet which has links to useful tools and resources to support with your publishing journey.

Please contact the MTW Clinical Librarians via mtw-tr.clinical-librarians@nhs.net for support and training opportunities.

 

 

Acknowledgements

Predatory Publishers - Predatory Journals and Publishers - LibGuides at Library & Knowledge Services for NHS Ambulance Services in England

ICMJE | Recommendations | Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors

finding-journals-to-publish.pdf

open access guidance | Knowledge and Library Services

CASP Checklists in 10 Minutes

You have just read an article claiming a "breakthrough" treatment for a condition you manage regularly, but you are thinking: "How do I know if this research is actually any good?"

This is where CASP comes in. CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) checklists are a series of checklists involving prompt questions to help you evaluate research studies. They are designed to help systematically assess the trustworthiness, value, and relevance of published research studies.

All CASP checklists are structured around three main questions to guide the appraisal process: 

1. Are the results of the study valid? (Assesses methodological rigour and bias).
2. What are the results? (Examines the reported outcomes and their clinical importance).
3. Will the results help locally (in my setting)? (Evaluates the relevance and applicability of the findings to a specific context).

CASP provides free checklists for the most common types of research you'll encounter:

1. Systematic Reviews with Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies
2. Systematic Reviews with Meta-Analysis of RCTs
3. Randomised Controlled Trial / RCT 
4. Systematic Review
5. Qualitative Studies 
6. Cohort Study
7. Diagnostic Study
8. Case Control Study
9. Economic Evaluation
10. Clinical Prediction Rule
11. Cross-Sectional Studies

Download PDF or Word versions at: https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/

How to Use CASP Checklists in 10 Minutes

Let's break down the systematic review checklist as an example (most commonly used).

The Three Sections

As already mentioned, every CASP checklist has three parts:

Section A: Are the results valid? (Screening questions)
Section B: What are the results? (Detailed questions)
Section C: Will the results help locally? (Applicability)

Section A: Screening Questions (2 minutes)

These are your "deal breakers." If the study fails here, you can stop—it's not worth continuing.

Question 1: Did the review address a clearly focused question?

Look for PICO:

• Population: Who was studied?
• Intervention: What was done?
• Comparison: Compared to what?
• Outcome: What did they measure?

Example of a good focused question: "In adults with Type 2 diabetes (P), does metformin (I) compared to placebo (C) reduce cardiovascular events (O)?"

Example of a poor question: "Does medication help diabetes?" (Too vague!)

If YES → Continue. If NO → Stop here, study is too broad/unclear

---

Question 2: Did the authors look for the right type of papers?

For a systematic review about treatment effectiveness, you'd want to see:

• ✅ Randomised controlled trials (RCTs)
• ✅ High-quality studies
• ✅ Relevant to the question

If they are including case reports or opinion pieces for a treatment question, that's a red flag.

If YES → Continue to Section B. If NO → Major concerns about reliability

Time check: 2 minutes spent. Should you continue? If both screening questions = YES, proceed.

---

Section B: Detailed Assessment (5 minutes)

Now you're diving deeper into the quality of the research.

Question 3: Do you think all the important, relevant studies were included?

Look for:

• ✅ Comprehensive search strategy (multiple databases)
• ✅ Clear inclusion/exclusion criteria
• ✅ Hand searching of reference lists
• ✅ Attempts to find unpublished studies
• ❌ Only searched one database = incomplete
• ❌ Only English language papers = potential bias

Question 4: Did the review's authors do enough to assess the quality of included studies?

Look for:

• ✅ Used validated quality assessment tools (like CASP!!)
• ✅ At least two reviewers assessed each study independently
• ✅ Quality scores reported
• ❌ No quality assessment = you don't know if they included junk studies

Question 5: If the results have been combined, was it reasonable to do so?

Check:

• ✅ Studies were similar enough to combine (similar populations, interventions, outcomes)
• ✅ Statistical heterogeneity assessed
• ❌ Combined apples and oranges (e.g., different age groups, different interventions)

Question 6: What are the overall results of the review?

Now you're getting to the findings:

• What is the main result?
• Is there a clear effect size?
• Are confidence intervals reported?
• How certain are the results?

Example: "Intervention reduced mortality by 20% (95% CI: 10-30%)" = clear, useful result

Question 7: How precise are the results?

Look at confidence intervals:

• Narrow = precise, confident
• Wide = uncertain, less reliable

Example:

• Precise: Risk reduction 20% (CI: 18-22%) = we're pretty sure it's around 20%
• Imprecise: Risk reduction 20% (CI: 2-38%) = could be anywhere from barely effective to very effective

Time check: 7 minutes total. Almost done!

---

Section C: Will the results help locally? (3 minutes)

This is where you decide: "Should I change my practice?"

Question 8: Can the results be applied to the local population?

Consider:

• Is your patient population similar to the study population?
• Are there important differences (age, comorbidities, setting)?
• Is the intervention feasible in your setting?

Example: Study in a community settings with limited resources might not apply to an acute hospital setting with intensive monitoring. 

Question 9: Were all important outcomes considered?

Check:

• Did they measure what matters to patients?
• Did they only report positive outcomes (cherry-picking)?
• What about adverse effects, quality of life, cost?

Question 10: Are the benefits worth the harms and costs?

The final question:

• What is the balance of benefits vs risks?
• Is it cost-effective?
• What do patients value?
• Are there alternative interventions?

Time check: 10 minutes total. Done!

CASP Checklists for Different Study Types

Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) Checklist

Use when: Evaluating treatment effectiveness studies

Key screening questions:

1. Did the trial address a clearly focused issue?
2. Was the assignment of patients to treatments randomised?
3. Were all patients who entered the trial properly accounted for at its conclusion?

Red flags:

• ❌ No randomisation

• ❌ High dropout rates (>20%)

• ❌ No intention-to-treat analysis

• ❌ Unblinded when blinding was possible

Time: 10 minutes

---

Cohort Study Checklist

Use when: Looking at prognosis, outcomes, or risk factors

Key screening questions:

1. Did the study address a clearly focused issue?
2. Was the cohort recruited in an acceptable way?
3. Was the exposure accurately measured to minimise bias?

Red flags:

• ❌ Selected cohort (not representative)

• ❌ Short follow-up period

• ❌ High loss to follow-up

• ❌ No adjustment for confounding factors

Time: 10 minutes

---

Qualitative Research Checklist

Use when: Understanding patient experiences, perspectives, or complex phenomena

Key screening questions:

1. Was there a clear statement of the aims?
2. Is a qualitative methodology appropriate?

Red flags:

• ❌ Quantitative question disguised as qualitative

• ❌ No description of methods

• ❌ Researcher bias not considered

• ❌ No participant quotes/data

Time: 10 minutes

---

Case Control Study Checklist

Use when: Investigating causes of disease or rare outcomes

Key screening questions:

1. Did the study address a clearly focused issue?
2. Did the authors use an appropriate method to answer their question?
3. Were the cases recruited in an acceptable way?

Red flags:

• ❌ Cases and controls from different populations

• ❌ Recall bias not addressed

• ❌ No matching or adjustment for confounders

• ❌ Small sample size for rare exposure

Time: 10 minutes

Further help:

For further help on using checklists contact the Clinical Librarians at mtw-tr.clinical.librarians@nhs.net  or sign up for our Critical Appraisal training course on MTW Learning or iLearn (KMMH)

'Name the study type' quiz - prize available!

 

On our critical appraisal theme, we have created a short quiz to help you test your knowledge of research types. 

Identifying study types is important for asking the right questions when critically appraising a research study paper. To learn more, see our recent evidence pyramid social media post or take the e-learning module on critically appraising the evidence base.

When you're ready, click below to access the quiz. Make sure you click 'submit' at the end for the chance of getting a prize! 

The quiz will be open until the end of November. We will select one lucky quiz-taker to receive a small prize and contact them in early December.

Build Your Personal Evidence Dashboard

Staying current with evidence isn't about reading everything. It's about having the right information delivered to you at the right time in a format you'll actually use.

A personal evidence dashboard makes this possible. 20 minutes per week reviewing a well-designed dashboard beats 2 hours of random searching every time.

What Is a Personal Evidence Dashboard?

Think of it as your own customized news feed for clinical evidence. Instead of you going out to find information, your dashboard brings the most relevant evidence directly to you - automatically, organized, and on a schedule that works for you.

Bringing It All Together: Your Complete Evidence Dashboard

A sustainable evidence dashboard has four components working together:

Pillar 1: OVID Medline Auto-Alerts - see blog post

• 2-3 alerts on your main topics
• Delivered: Monday mornings
• Time: 5-10 minutes to review

Pillar 2: Journal Email Alerts - see Instagram post

• 3-5 core journals in your specialty
• Delivered: As each issue publishes
• Time: 10 minutes Friday afternoon

Pillar 3: Specialty Organizations - see blog post

• Your Royal College + 2-3 key organizations
• Delivered: Weekly/monthly digests
• Time: 5 minutes Monday morning

Pillar 4: RSS Feed Dashboard (Optional) - see Instagram post

• 10-15 curated sources
• Check: Monday, Wednesday, Friday
• Time: 25 minutes per week

Total weekly time commitment: 45-60 minutes

Less than one hour per week to stay completely current in your specialty.

Your Weekly Evidence Routine

Monday Morning (15 minutes with coffee):

• Check OVID alerts (5 min)
• Skim organization updates (5 min)
• Review RSS "Daily Check" folder (5 min)
• Flag interesting items for later

Wednesday Midweek (5 minutes):

• Quick RSS scan
• Note trending topics
• Share anything urgent with team

Friday Afternoon (20 minutes):

• Review journal TOCs (10 min)
• Check RSS "Weekly Review" (10 min)
• Read abstracts of flagged articles
• Archive/delete processed items
• Plan weekend reading

Weekend (Optional—30 minutes):

• Read 2-3 full articles you flagged
• Make notes for practice
• Share key findings with team next week

Email Management for Your Dashboard

Having a dashboard means managing emails effectively. Here's how:

Create these Outlook folders:

Set up Outlook rules:

Processing your emails:

Every email gets ONE of these actions:

1. Delete - Not relevant after all
2. Flag - Interesting, read abstract/article
3. Share - Forward to colleague/team
4. Archive - Reviewed, nothing relevant right now

Never let alerts pile up. Process weekly or they become overwhelming!

Troubleshooting Your Dashboard

Problem: Too much information

Symptoms:

• Hundreds of unread items
• Feeling overwhelmed
• Avoiding checking your dashboard

Solutions:

• Unsubscribe from 50% of sources
• Use "mark all as read" and start fresh
• Be more specific in OVID searches (narrower results)
• Change email frequency to monthly
• Consider RSS instead of email

Problem: Not finding relevant content

Symptoms:

• Alerts rarely contain useful articles
• Considering canceling everything
• Not sure why you set these up

Solutions:

• Broaden OVID search terms (use more OR)
• Check different journals (maybe wrong specialty focus)
• Add more organizations (not just main Royal College)
• Ask librarian to review search strategies
• Reassess your actual information needs

Problem: Never reading the alerts

Symptoms:

• Alerts pile up unread
• Good intentions but no follow-through
• Feeling guilty about it

Solutions:

• Schedule specific time in calendar (Friday 3pm)
• Reduce to just 2-3 sources maximum
• Try different format (RSS instead of email)
• Pair with existing routine (Monday coffee)
• Be honest—do you actually need this?

Problem: Information overload

Symptoms:

• Trying to read everything
• Spending hours, not minutes
• Stressed about missing things

Solutions:

• Accept you can't read everything (nobody can!)
• Focus on abstracts, not full articles
• Use "title scan only" for most items
• Read deeply only 2-3 articles per week
• Remember: awareness beats deep reading for most items

Dashboard Examples by Role

Example 1: Resident Doctor - General Medicine

OVID Alerts:

• Alert 1: "Acute Medical Emergencies"
• Alert 2: "Quality Improvement Methods"

Journals (via email):

• BMJ
• Clinical Medicine
• Journal of Hospital Medicine

Organizations:

• Royal College of Physicians
• BMA Resident Doctors
• NHS England updates

RSS:

• Not using RSS yet (keeping it simple)

Time: 30 minutes/week

Example 2: Diabetes Nurse

OVID Alerts:

• Alert 1: "Diabetes Management Primary Care"
• Alert 2: "Patient Education Diabetes"

Journals:

• Journal of Advanced Nursing
• Diabetic Medicine
• Practical Diabetes

Organizations:

• RCN Diabetes Forum
• Diabetes UK Professional
• NICE Diabetes Updates

RSS (Feedly):

• Cochrane Diabetes Reviews
• Evidence-Based Nursing blog
• NHS Diabetes guidance updates
• RCN news feed

Time: 45 minutes/week

Example 3: Pharmacist

OVID Alerts:

• Alert 1: "Antimicrobial Stewardship"
• Alert 2: "Adverse Drug Events Prevention"

Journals:

• Pharmaceutical Journal
• International Journal of Pharmacy Practice
• BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine

Organizations:

• Royal Pharmaceutical Society
• UK Clinical Pharmacy Association
• NICE Medicines Updates

RSS:

• BNF updates feed
• MHRA Drug Safety Updates
• SIGN Guidelines (Scotland)
• Hospital Pharmacy Europe
• Pharmacy news aggregator

Time: 45 minutes/week

Example 4: Physiotherapist

OVID Alerts:

• Alert 1: "Low Back Pain Rehabilitation"
• Alert 2: "Exercise Therapy Outcomes"

Journals:

• Physiotherapy Journal
• British Journal of Sports Medicine
• Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy

Organizations:

• Chartered Society of Physiotherapy
• HCPC Professional Updates
• NICE MSK Guidelines

RSS:

• Cochrane Back Review Group
• Sports Physio blog aggregator
• CSP news
• Physio Network
• Evidence-Based Rehabilitation

Time: 40 minutes/week

Getting Help

Your Clinical Librarian team can:

• ✅ Review your OVID search strategies
• ✅ Recommend journals for your specialty
• ✅ Troubleshoot alerts not working
• ✅ Suggest organization newsletters
• ✅ Help set up RSS feeds

Email: mtw-tr.clinical.librarians@nhs.net