The Slippery Slope
- 1 April 2006
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration
- Vol. 36 (4) , 211-219
- https://doi.org/10.1097/00005110-200604000-00011
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.Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- Differentiating quality improvement from researchApplied Nursing Research, 2003
- Quality collaboratives: lessons from researchQuality and Safety in Health Care, 2002
- Quality Improvement or Research: A Distinction without a Difference?IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 2002
- Enhancing a Professional Environment in the Organized Delivery SystemNursing Administration Quarterly, 2002
- Research in the Community HospitalJONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, 2001
- Operating Room Nurse Managers—Competence and BeyondAORN Journal, 2001
- Determining When Quality Improvement Initiatives Should Be Considered ResearchJAMA, 2000
- The Three Faces of Performance Measurement: Improvement, Accountability, and ResearchThe Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement, 1997