Oversight of Quality Improvement
- 23 June 2003
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA) in Archives of internal medicine (1960)
- Vol. 163 (12) , 1481-1486
- https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.163.12.1481
Abstract
Quality improvement (QI) may substantially improve patient outcomes while posing little risk to subjects. However, the termquality improvementis used to refer to a broad range of projects, which vary widely in the potential benefits and risks to participants. Some projects raise ethical concerns. An explicit protocol for the ethical review of QI would benefit both patients and leaders of QI projects. If a project is considered research rather than QI, review by an institutional review board and informed consent from subjects may be required. In contrast, QI projects may require little oversight beyond what is already in place for clinical care. However, a monolithic approach to oversight of QI is inappropriate in light of the variation in benefits and risks of QI projects and their overlap with research. The key ethical issue is not the classification of a project as QI or research, but the balance of anticipated benefits and harms in the project. We propose a protocol for independent review of QI projects and patient consent that will protect subjects from serious harm while encouraging QI projects that will substantially benefit participants and pose only minimal risk.This publication has 5 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Quality Improvement–Research Divide and the Need for External OversightAmerican Journal of Public Health, 2001
- Is Informed Consent Always Necessary for Randomized, Controlled Trials?New England Journal of Medicine, 1999
- Thin line between research and auditThe Lancet, 1998
- UK multicentre project on assessment of risk of trisomy 21 by maternal age and fetal nuchal-translucency thickness at 10–14 weeks of gestationThe Lancet, 1998
- Developing and Testing Changes in Delivery of CareAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1998