Oversight on the borderline: Quality improvement and pragmatic research
- 15 September 2015
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Clinical Trials
- Vol. 12 (5), 457-466
- https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774515597682
Abstract
Pragmatic research that compares interventions to improve the organization and delivery of health care may overlap, in both goals and methods, with quality improvement activities. When activities have attributes of both research and quality improvement, confusion often arises about what ethical oversight is, or should be, required. For routine quality improvement, in which the delivery of health care is modified in minor ways that create only minimal risks, oversight by local clinical or administrative leaders utilizing institutional policies may be sufficient. However, additional consideration should be given to activities that go beyond routine, local quality improvement to first determine whether such non-routine activities constitute research or quality improvement and, in either case, to ensure that independent oversight will occur. This should promote rigor, transparency, and protection of patients’ and clinicians’ rights, well-being, and privacy in all such activities. Specifically, we recommend that (1) health care organizations should have systematic policies and processes for designating activities as routine quality improvement, non-routine quality improvement, or quality improvement research and determining what oversight each will receive. (2) Health care organizations should have formal and explicit oversight processes for non-routine quality improvement activities that may include input from institutional quality improvement experts, health services researchers, administrators, clinicians, patient representatives, and those experienced in the ethics review of health care activities. (3) Quality improvement research requires review by an institutional review board; for such review to be effective, institutional review boards should develop particular expertise in assessing quality improvement research. (4) Stakeholders should be included in the review of non-routine quality improvement and quality improvement–related research proposals. Only by doing so will we optimally leverage both pragmatic research on health care delivery and local implementation through quality improvement as complementary activities for improving health.Keywords
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- Gatekeepers for pragmatic clinical trialsClinical Trials, 2015
- OHRP and Standard-of-Care ResearchThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2014
- Ethics and Regulatory Complexities for Pragmatic Clinical TrialsJAMA, 2014
- An instrument to differentiate between clinical research and quality improvement.2013
- An Ethics Framework for a Learning Health Care System: A Departure from Traditional Research Ethics and Clinical EthicsHastings Center Report, 2013
- The ethical review of health care quality improvement initiatives: findings from the field.2010
- Critical care checklists, the Keystone Project, and the Office for Human Research Protections: A case for streamlining the approval process in quality-improvement research*Critical Care Medicine, 2009
- Controversy and Quality Improvement: Lingering Questions About Ethics, Oversight, and Patient Safety ResearchThe Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 2008
- The Ethics of Using Quality Improvement Methods in Health CareAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2007
- Determining When Quality Improvement Initiatives Should Be Considered ResearchJAMA, 2000