Literature DB >> 19365642

Ethical issues in using data from quality management programs.

David R Nerenz1.   

Abstract

Since the advent of formal, data-driven quality improvement programs in health care in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there are have been questions raised about requirements for ethical committee review of quality improvement activities. A form of consensus emerged through a series of articles published between 1996 and 2007, but there is still significant variation among ethics review committees and individual project leaders in applying broad policies on requirements for committee review and/or written informed consent by participants. Recent developments in quality management, particularly the creation and use of multi-site disease registries, have raised new questions about requirements for review and consent, since the activities often have simultaneous research and quality improvement goals. This article discusses ways in which policies designed for local quality improvement projects and data bases may be adapted to apply to multi-site registries and research projects related to them.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19365642      PMCID: PMC2899322          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-0972-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  49 in total

1.  Relation of surgical volume to outcome in eight common operations: results from the VA National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

Authors:  S F Khuri; J Daley; W Henderson; K Hur; M Hossain; D Soybel; K W Kizer; J B Aust; R H Bell; V Chong; J Demakis; P J Fabri; J O Gibbs; F Grover; K Hammermeister; G McDonald; E Passaro; L Phillips; F Scamman; J Spencer; J F Stremple
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  Quality improvement reports: a new kind of article. They should allow authors to describe improvement projects so others can learn.

Authors:  R Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-12-09

3.  Quality improvement and the need for IRB review.

Authors:  David R Nerenz; Patricia K Stoltz; Jack Jordan
Journal:  Qual Manag Health Care       Date:  2003 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 0.926

4.  Why new guidelines for reporting improvement research? And why now?

Authors:  D P Stevens
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2005-10

5.  Determining when quality improvement initiatives should be considered research: proposed criteria and potential implications.

Authors:  D Casarett; J H Karlawish; J Sugarman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-05-03       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  A survey of academic medical centers to distinguish between quality improvement and research activities.

Authors:  Nate Johnson; Lee Vermeulen; Kelly M Smith
Journal:  Qual Manag Health Care       Date:  2006 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 0.926

7.  Harvesting knowledge from improvement.

Authors:  D M Berwick
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-03-20       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  The ethics of using quality improvement methods in health care.

Authors:  Joanne Lynn; Mary Ann Baily; Melissa Bottrell; Bruce Jennings; Robert J Levine; Frank Davidoff; David Casarett; Janet Corrigan; Ellen Fox; Matthew K Wynia; George J Agich; Margaret O'Kane; Theodore Speroff; Paul Schyve; Paul Batalden; Sean Tunis; Nancy Berlinger; Linda Cronenwett; J Michael Fitzmaurice; Nancy Neveloff Dubler; Brent James
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2007-04-16       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Potential impact of the HIPAA privacy rule on data collection in a registry of patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Authors:  David Armstrong; Eva Kline-Rogers; Sandeep M Jani; Edward B Goldman; Jianming Fang; Debabrata Mukherjee; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Kim A Eagle
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2005-05-23

10.  Commentary: quality improvement projects: how do we protect patients' rights?

Authors:  Louis H Diamond; Alan S Kliger; Richard S Goldman; Paul M Palevsky
Journal:  Am J Med Qual       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.852

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.