Literature DB >> 12824099

Oversight of quality improvement: focusing on benefits and risks.

Bernard Lo1, Michelle Groman.   

Abstract

Quality improvement (QI) may substantially improve patient outcomes while posing little risk to subjects. However, the term quality improvement is used to refer to a broad range of projects, which vary widely in the potential benefits and risks to participants. Some projects raise ethical concerns. An explicit protocol for the ethical review of QI would benefit both patients and leaders of QI projects. If a project is considered research rather than QI, review by an institutional review board and informed consent from subjects may be required. In contrast, QI projects may require little oversight beyond what is already in place for clinical care. However, a monolithic approach to oversight of QI is inappropriate in light of the variation in benefits and risks of QI projects and their overlap with research. The key ethical issue is not the classification of a project as QI or research, but the balance of anticipated benefits and harms in the project. We propose a protocol for independent review of QI projects and patient consent that will protect subjects from serious harm while encouraging QI projects that will substantially benefit participants and pose only minimal risk.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Health Care and Public Health

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12824099     DOI: 10.1001/archinte.163.12.1481

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-9926


  7 in total

Review 1.  A decision tool to guide the ethics review of a challenging breed of emerging genomic projects.

Authors:  Yann Joly; Derek So; Gladys Osien; Laura Crimi; Martin Bobrow; Don Chalmers; Susan E Wallace; Nikolajs Zeps; Bartha Knoppers
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-01-20       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Innovations in the Ethical Review of Health-Related Quality Improvement and Research: The Alberta Research Ethics Community Consensus Initiative (ARECCI).

Authors:  Brad Hagen; Maeve O'Beirne; Sunil Desai; Michael Stingl; Cathy Anne Pachnowski; Sarah Hayward
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2007-05

Review 3.  Human subjects issues and IRB review in practice-based research.

Authors:  Leslie E Wolf; Janice Ferrara Walden; Bernard Lo
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2005 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.166

4.  Improving Sepsis Care: Is It Research? Promoting Clarity in a Zone of Confusion.

Authors:  Jonathan M Green; Holly A Taylor
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 9.296

Review 5.  Research governance: where did it come from, what does it mean?

Authors:  Sara Shaw; Petra M Boynton; Trisha Greenhalgh
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 18.000

6.  High quality care and ethical pay-for-performance: a Society of General Internal Medicine policy analysis.

Authors:  J Frank Wharam; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Neil J Farber; Christine Sinsky; Lisa Rucker; Kimberly J Rask; M Kathleen Figaro; Clarence Braddock; Michael J Barry; Daniel P Sulmasy
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2009-03-18       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Human subjects protection issues in QUERI implementation research: QUERI Series.

Authors:  Edmund Chaney; Laura G Rabuck; Jane Uman; Deborah C Mittman; Carol Simons; Barbara F Simon; Mona Ritchie; Marisue Cody; Lisa V Rubenstein
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2008-02-15       Impact factor: 7.327

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.