Literature DB >> 16609344

The slippery slope: differentiating between quality improvement and research.

Robin P Newhouse1, Joan C Pettit, Stephanie Poe, Laura Rocco.   

Abstract

As hospitals strive to create strong work environments for nurses, many use the core requirements for Magnet designation to enhance and build new programs in research and evidence-based practice into patient care and operational processes. The problem is the use of quality improvement projects in these efforts as evidence of a healthy "research" program. This confusion can lead to 3 major consequences: (1) poorly designed and interpreted studies; (2) lack of consideration of subject rights; and (3) Institutional Review Board or other regulatory sanctions for noncompliance with federal, state, and local law and institutional policies. The purpose of this article is to differentiate between research and quality improvement, explore the potential risks of confusing quality improvement with research, and suggest criteria by which to determine the difference.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16609344     DOI: 10.1097/00005110-200604000-00011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nurs Adm        ISSN: 0002-0443            Impact factor:   1.737


  4 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.  Addressing the process improvement science knowledge and skills of program directors and associate program directors.

Authors:  Judith A Gravdal; Pamela Hyziak; Frank Belmonte; Mary Ann Clemens; Suela Sulo
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2015

Review 3.  Differentiating Research, Quality Improvement, and Case Studies to Ethically Incorporate Pregnant Women.

Authors:  Julia C Phillippi; Katherine E Hartmann
Journal:  J Midwifery Womens Health       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 2.388

Review 4.  Scoping review of complexity theory in health services research.

Authors:  David S Thompson; Xavier Fazio; Erika Kustra; Linda Patrick; Darren Stanley
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-03-12       Impact factor: 2.655

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.