The quality improvement-research divide and the need for external oversight
- PMID: 11527790
- PMCID: PMC1446813
- DOI: 10.2105/ajph.91.9.1512
The quality improvement-research divide and the need for external oversight
Abstract
Historically, quality assurance studies have received scant ethical attention. The advent of information systems capable of supporting research-grade continuous quality improvement projects demands that we clearly define how these projects differ from research and when they require external review. The ethical obligation for the performance of quality assurance projects, with its emphasis on identifiable immediate action for a served population, is a critical distinction. The obligation to perform continuous quality improvement is a deliverable of the social contract entered into implicitly by patients and health care providers and systems. In this article, the authors review the ethical framework that requires these studies, evaluate the differences between quality assurance studies and classic research, and propose criteria for requiring external review.
References
-
- Code of Federal Regulations. Public Welfare (Protection of Human Subjects), 45 CFR §46 (1991). - PubMed
-
- NY Pub Health, §2805-M (2000).
-
- What Every Hospital Should Know About Sentinel Events. Oakbrook Terrace, Ill: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations; 2000.
-
- To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.
-
- President's Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and Quality in the Health Care Industry. Quality First: Better Health Care for All Americans: Final Report to the President of the United States. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1998.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
