Establishing the doctor of nursing practice project ethical review process to improve standardization, efficiency, and timeliness

Kimberly McIltrot; Deborah W. Busch; Brigit Van Graafeiland; Elaine Stashinko; Martha Abshire; Monique Daniels; Vinciya Pandian; Sandra Panchalingam; Cheryl R. Himmelfarb; Rita D' Aoust

doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2022.03.002

Establishing the doctor of nursing practice project ethical review process to improve standardization, efficiency, and timeliness

Kimberly McIltrot, Deborah W. Busch, Brigit Van Graafeiland, Elaine Stashinko, Martha Abshire, Monique Daniels, Vinciya Pandian, Sandra Panchalingam, Cheryl R. Himmelfarb, Rita D' Aoust

School of Nursing

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Background: DNP Scholarly projects require review for scientific merit and human subject protection. Rapid growth of DNP programs and projects has increased Institutional Review Board (IRB) burden and increased the length of project approval time when most DNP scholarly projects are quality improvement (QI) projects and not deemed Human Subjects Research (HSR). Purpose: Develop a process and describe the rationale for creating and implementing a Project Ethical Review Committee (PERC) in the School of Nursing and to evaluate the experience of the first cohort of submissions. Process: Committee was formed using expert consensus approach, in collaboration with IRB. Standards of Procedures and training materials created. Outcome measure: 100 projects submitted to committee; 95 deemed QI (95%) and 5 projects considered HSR (5%). First 94 projects were reviewed, and approval letters sent within 8 weeks. Discussion: This paper discusses how PERC ensures rigorous and ethical review process for standardization, timeliness, and efficiency.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	616-624
Number of pages	9
Journal	Nursing outlook
Volume	70
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2022.03.002
State	Published - Jul 1 2022

Keywords

DNP Scholarly Project
Ethical Review Process
Institutional Review Board (IRB)
Quality Improvement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

General Nursing

Access to Document

10.1016/j.outlook.2022.03.002

Cite this

McIltrot, K., Busch, D. W., Van Graafeiland, B., Stashinko, E., Abshire, M., Daniels, M., Pandian, V., Panchalingam, S., Himmelfarb, C. R., & D' Aoust, R. (2022). Establishing the doctor of nursing practice project ethical review process to improve standardization, efficiency, and timeliness. Nursing outlook, 70(4), 616-624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2022.03.002

McIltrot, K , Busch, DW , Van Graafeiland, B, Stashinko, E, Abshire, M, Daniels, M, Pandian, V, Panchalingam, S, Himmelfarb, CR & D' Aoust, R 2022, 'Establishing the doctor of nursing practice project ethical review process to improve standardization, efficiency, and timeliness', Nursing outlook, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 616-624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2022.03.002

@article{5e72563988164295b7a6175af0c80231,

title = "Establishing the doctor of nursing practice project ethical review process to improve standardization, efficiency, and timeliness",

abstract = "Background: DNP Scholarly projects require review for scientific merit and human subject protection. Rapid growth of DNP programs and projects has increased Institutional Review Board (IRB) burden and increased the length of project approval time when most DNP scholarly projects are quality improvement (QI) projects and not deemed Human Subjects Research (HSR). Purpose: Develop a process and describe the rationale for creating and implementing a Project Ethical Review Committee (PERC) in the School of Nursing and to evaluate the experience of the first cohort of submissions. Process: Committee was formed using expert consensus approach, in collaboration with IRB. Standards of Procedures and training materials created. Outcome measure: 100 projects submitted to committee; 95 deemed QI (95%) and 5 projects considered HSR (5%). First 94 projects were reviewed, and approval letters sent within 8 weeks. Discussion: This paper discusses how PERC ensures rigorous and ethical review process for standardization, timeliness, and efficiency.",

keywords = "DNP Scholarly Project, Ethical Review Process, Institutional Review Board (IRB), Quality Improvement",

author = "Kimberly McIltrot and Busch, {Deborah W.} and {Van Graafeiland}, Brigit and Elaine Stashinko and Martha Abshire and Monique Daniels and Vinciya Pandian and Sandra Panchalingam and Himmelfarb, {Cheryl R.} and {D' Aoust}, Rita",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022 Elsevier Inc.",

year = "2022",

month = jul,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.outlook.2022.03.002",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "70",

pages = "616--624",

journal = "Nursing outlook",

issn = "0029-6554",

publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Establishing the doctor of nursing practice project ethical review process to improve standardization, efficiency, and timeliness

AU - McIltrot, Kimberly

AU - Busch, Deborah W.

AU - Van Graafeiland, Brigit

AU - Stashinko, Elaine

AU - Abshire, Martha

AU - Daniels, Monique

AU - Pandian, Vinciya

AU - Panchalingam, Sandra

AU - Himmelfarb, Cheryl R.

AU - D' Aoust, Rita

PY - 2022/7/1

Y1 - 2022/7/1

N2 - Background: DNP Scholarly projects require review for scientific merit and human subject protection. Rapid growth of DNP programs and projects has increased Institutional Review Board (IRB) burden and increased the length of project approval time when most DNP scholarly projects are quality improvement (QI) projects and not deemed Human Subjects Research (HSR). Purpose: Develop a process and describe the rationale for creating and implementing a Project Ethical Review Committee (PERC) in the School of Nursing and to evaluate the experience of the first cohort of submissions. Process: Committee was formed using expert consensus approach, in collaboration with IRB. Standards of Procedures and training materials created. Outcome measure: 100 projects submitted to committee; 95 deemed QI (95%) and 5 projects considered HSR (5%). First 94 projects were reviewed, and approval letters sent within 8 weeks. Discussion: This paper discusses how PERC ensures rigorous and ethical review process for standardization, timeliness, and efficiency.

AB - Background: DNP Scholarly projects require review for scientific merit and human subject protection. Rapid growth of DNP programs and projects has increased Institutional Review Board (IRB) burden and increased the length of project approval time when most DNP scholarly projects are quality improvement (QI) projects and not deemed Human Subjects Research (HSR). Purpose: Develop a process and describe the rationale for creating and implementing a Project Ethical Review Committee (PERC) in the School of Nursing and to evaluate the experience of the first cohort of submissions. Process: Committee was formed using expert consensus approach, in collaboration with IRB. Standards of Procedures and training materials created. Outcome measure: 100 projects submitted to committee; 95 deemed QI (95%) and 5 projects considered HSR (5%). First 94 projects were reviewed, and approval letters sent within 8 weeks. Discussion: This paper discusses how PERC ensures rigorous and ethical review process for standardization, timeliness, and efficiency.

KW - DNP Scholarly Project

KW - Ethical Review Process

KW - Institutional Review Board (IRB)

KW - Quality Improvement

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85129560883&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85129560883&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.outlook.2022.03.002

DO - 10.1016/j.outlook.2022.03.002

M3 - Article

C2 - 35513900

AN - SCOPUS:85129560883

SN - 0029-6554

VL - 70

SP - 616

EP - 624

JO - Nursing outlook

JF - Nursing outlook

IS - 4

ER -

Establishing the doctor of nursing practice project ethical review process to improve standardization, efficiency, and timeliness

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this