TY - JOUR
T1 - Oversight on the borderline
T2 - Quality improvement and pragmatic research
AU - Finkelstein, Jonathan A.
AU - Brickman, Andrew L.
AU - Capron, Alexander
AU - Ford, Daniel E.
AU - Gombosev, Adrijana
AU - Greene, Sarah M.
AU - Iafrate, R. Peter
AU - Kolaczkowski, Laura
AU - Pallin, Sarah C.
AU - Pletcher, Mark J.
AU - Staman, Karen L.
AU - Vazquez, Miguel A.
AU - Sugarman, Jeremy
N1 - Funding Information:
This work is supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund, through a cooperative agreement (U54 AT007748) from the Office of Strategic Coordination within the Office of the NIH Director. Additional support was provided by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Award for development of the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 The Society for Clinical Trials.
PY - 2015/10/1
Y1 - 2015/10/1
N2 - Pragmatic research that compares interventions to improve the organization and delivery of health care may overlap, in both goals and methods, with quality improvement activities. When activities have attributes of both research and quality improvement, confusion often arises about what ethical oversight is, or should be, required. For routine quality improvement, in which the delivery of health care is modified in minor ways that create only minimal risks, oversight by local clinical or administrative leaders utilizing institutional policies may be sufficient. However, additional consideration should be given to activities that go beyond routine, local quality improvement to first determine whether such non-routine activities constitute research or quality improvement and, in either case, to ensure that independent oversight will occur. This should promote rigor, transparency, and protection of patients and clinicians rights, well-being, and privacy in all such activities. Specifically, we recommend that (1) health care organizations should have systematic policies and processes for designating activities as routine quality improvement, non-routine quality improvement, or quality improvement research and determining what oversight each will receive. (2) Health care organizations should have formal and explicit oversight processes for non-routine quality improvement activities that may include input from institutional quality improvement experts, health services researchers, administrators, clinicians, patient representatives, and those experienced in the ethics review of health care activities. (3) Quality improvement research requires review by an institutional review board; for such review to be effective, institutional review boards should develop particular expertise in assessing quality improvement research. (4) Stakeholders should be included in the review of non-routine quality improvement and quality improvement-related research proposals. Only by doing so will we optimally leverage both pragmatic research on health care delivery and local implementation through quality improvement as complementary activities for improving health.
AB - Pragmatic research that compares interventions to improve the organization and delivery of health care may overlap, in both goals and methods, with quality improvement activities. When activities have attributes of both research and quality improvement, confusion often arises about what ethical oversight is, or should be, required. For routine quality improvement, in which the delivery of health care is modified in minor ways that create only minimal risks, oversight by local clinical or administrative leaders utilizing institutional policies may be sufficient. However, additional consideration should be given to activities that go beyond routine, local quality improvement to first determine whether such non-routine activities constitute research or quality improvement and, in either case, to ensure that independent oversight will occur. This should promote rigor, transparency, and protection of patients and clinicians rights, well-being, and privacy in all such activities. Specifically, we recommend that (1) health care organizations should have systematic policies and processes for designating activities as routine quality improvement, non-routine quality improvement, or quality improvement research and determining what oversight each will receive. (2) Health care organizations should have formal and explicit oversight processes for non-routine quality improvement activities that may include input from institutional quality improvement experts, health services researchers, administrators, clinicians, patient representatives, and those experienced in the ethics review of health care activities. (3) Quality improvement research requires review by an institutional review board; for such review to be effective, institutional review boards should develop particular expertise in assessing quality improvement research. (4) Stakeholders should be included in the review of non-routine quality improvement and quality improvement-related research proposals. Only by doing so will we optimally leverage both pragmatic research on health care delivery and local implementation through quality improvement as complementary activities for improving health.
KW - Quality improvement
KW - ethics
KW - health care operations
KW - patient engagement
KW - pragmatic clinical trials
KW - research
KW - stakeholder engagement
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84942915703&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84942915703&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/1740774515597682
DO - 10.1177/1740774515597682
M3 - Review article
C2 - 26374685
AN - SCOPUS:84942915703
SN - 1740-7745
VL - 12
SP - 457
EP - 466
JO - Clinical Trials
JF - Clinical Trials
IS - 5
ER -