HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lynn, J Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lynn, J Topic Collections Relevant Articles

When does quality improvement count as research? Human subject protection and theories of knowledge

Correspondence to:
Dr J Lynn
The Washington Home Center for Palliative Care Studies, 4200 Wisconsin Ave NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20016, USA; Jlynn{at}medicaring.org
ABSTRACT
The publication of insights from a quality improvement project recently precipitated a ruling by the lead federal regulatory agency that regulations providing protection for human subjects of research should apply. The required research review process did not match the rapid changes, small samples, limited documentation, clinician management, and type of information commonly used in quality improvement. Yet quality improvement can risk harm to patients, so some review might be in order. The boundaries and processes are not clear. Efforts have been made to determine what constitutes "research", but this has proved difficult and often yields irrational guidance with regard to protection of patients. Society needs a workable way to separate activities that will improve care, on the one hand, and those that constitute research, on the other. Practitioners who lead both quality improvement and research projects claim that those which rapidly give feedback to the care system that generated the data, aiming to change practices within that system, are "quality improvement" no matter whether the findings are published, whether the project is grant funded, and whether contemporaneous controls do not have the intervention. This criterion has not previously been proposed as a possible demarcation. The quandaries of which projects to put through research review and how to ensure ethical implementation of quality improvement need to be resolved.

Keywords: quality improvement; human subject protection; informed consent; ethics

Relevant Articles

Quality lines
Qual. Saf. Health Care 2004 13: 1. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. Wade Ethics of collecting and using healthcare data BMJ, June 30, 2007; 334(7608): 1330 - 1331. [Full Text] [PDF]

				F Davidoff and P Batalden Toward stronger evidence on quality improvement. Draft publication guidelines: the beginning of a consensus project Qual. Saf. Health Care, October 1, 2005; 14(5): 319 - 325. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. W. Mold and K. A. Peterson Primary Care Practice-Based Research Networks: Working at the Interface Between Research and Quality Improvement Ann. Fam. Med, May 1, 2005; 3(suppl_1): S12 - S20. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Quality improvement projects and research review J. Med. Ethics, August 1, 2004; 30(4): 394 - 394. [Full Text] [PDF]

				L Doyal Preserving moral quality in research, audit, and quality improvement Qual. Saf. Health Care, February 1, 2004; 13(1): 11 - 12. [Full Text]