Literature DB >> 12891960

Quality improvement and the need for IRB review.

David R Nerenz1, Patricia K Stoltz, Jack Jordan.   

Abstract

Improving health care quality is increasingly recognized as a national priority in the United States. As a result, more and more health care organizations can be expected to undertake quality improvement (QI) initiatives. A question being raised with increasing frequency is: "Which QI activities need review by an institutional review board (IRB)?" Structured data collection and analysis is a common characteristic of most QI activities. For some QI projects, the fundamental goal is improved understanding of phenomena presumed to be generalizable to settings other than those directly studied. These activities are research. For other projects, the fundamental goal is improvement in specific processes and systems within specific organizations. These activities are not research. This article proposes that this difference in intent and the fundamental nature of the activity is crucial in deciding which QI initiatives need IRB review. The article presents test questions and markers to distinguish research from other types of QI activities. Those that are not research do not require IRB review. However, because such activities may still put patients at risk, some other review may be necessary. The article proposes five levels of risk and makes recommendations for review by an entity other than the IRB.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12891960     DOI: 10.1097/00019514-200307000-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Manag Health Care        ISSN: 1063-8628            Impact factor:   0.926


  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.  Health care organizations' use of data on race/ethnicity to address disparities in health care.

Authors:  David R Nerenz; Kelly A Hunt; José J Escarce
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 3.  Ethical issues in using data from quality management programs.

Authors:  David R Nerenz
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-04-14       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  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

5.  Implications of the Revised Common Rule for Human Participant Research.

Authors:  Evan G DeRenzo; Joel Moss; Eric A Singer
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2018-10-09       Impact factor: 9.410

6.  SAFE QI - a framework to overcome the challenges of implementing a quality improvement curriculum into a residency program.

Authors:  Lawrence Cheung
Journal:  Adv Med Educ Pract       Date:  2017-12-01

7.  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 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.