Investigative First Steps: Appropriate Identification and Ethical Review of Research and Quality Improvement

Abstract

Acquiring data ethically is a cornerstone of scientific investigation. This is especially important in the field of nursing informatics because the vast majority of data deals directly with people and their personal health information. Before investigators collect or use data from surveys, charts, or samples, the appropriate ethics review and approval must occur. Determining the appropriate ethics review depends on the investigative method employed; therefore, correct method identification is integral. From an ethics review standpoint, two of the most common methods, research and quality improvement (QI), are fundamentally dissimilar yet difficult to differentiate. Inaccurately identifying a study as research or QI could mean that it is inappropriately reviewed or conducted without appropriate ethics approval. Nursing informatics requires the appropriate identification of research and QI methods to prevent investigators from unnecessarily putting themselves, their studies, their study participants and their data integrity at risk.

Full text

Investigative First Steps: Appropriate Identification and Ethical Review of Research and Quality
Improvement
By
Theodore D. Cosco, Alana Knopp, BA and Doris L. Milke, MSc, PhD
Citation:
Cosco, T., Knopp, A. & Milke, D. (October, 2007). Investigative first steps: Appropriate identification and ethical review of research and
quality improvement. Online Journal of Nursing Informatics (OJNI), 11, (3) [Online]. Available at http://ojni.org/11_3/cosco.htm
Abstract
Acquiring data ethically is a cornerstone of scientific investigation. This is especially important in
the field of nursing informatics because the vast majority of data deals directly with people and their
personal health information. Before investigators collect or use data from surveys, charts, or samples, the
appropriate ethics review and approval must occur. Determining the appropriate ethics review depends on
the investigative method employed; therefore, correct method identification is integral. From an ethics
review standpoint, two of the most common methods, research and quality improvement (QI), are
fundamentally dissimilar yet difficult to differentiate. Inaccurately identifying a study as research or QI
could mean that it is inappropriately reviewed or conducted without appropriate ethics approval. Nursing
informatics requires the appropriate identification of research and QI methods to prevent investigators
from unnecessarily putting themselves, their studies, their study participants and their data integrity at
risk.
Key words: Research, Quality Improvement, Ethics Review, Method Identification, Nursing Informatics
Background
Nursing informatics (NI) is inherently an information intensive field, generating knowledge that informs
decisions about patient care while increasing the quality of nursing practice (Goosen, 1996; Hannah,
2007). NI practices become more efficient, effective and productive through scientific investigations
(Simpson, 2007). However, before investigators can collect or use data from surveys, charts or samples,
the appropriate ethics review and approval must occur. This protects investigators, their studies, study
participants and data integrity from unnecessary risks associated with the misapplication of research and

quality improvement (QI).
Ethical advancements in knowledge using research and QI methods combine information,
technology and nursing practice to increase the quality of care. NI synthesizes these components using
primary data, collected by nursing informaticians, and/or secondary data, collected by investigators in
other fields. An example of a nursing informatician using primary data would be if s/he developed an on-
line survey regarding perceived benefits of a nursing-specific search engine and personally retrieved the
survey data. Conversely, a nursing informatician would be using secondary data if s/he were to analyze
the perceived benefits of a nursing-specific search engine using data collected by an occupational
therapist. Primary and secondary data analyses require the same method identification and ethics review
process (Huston & Naylor, 1996). Dealing with personal health data requires nursing informaticians to
treat any study as if they conducted the original data collection and go through an appropriate ethics
review process.
Determining the appropriate ethics review process depends upon correctly identifying the
investigative method. Unfortunately, distinguishing between two of the most common methods, research
and QI, is not always a straightforward task. A pivotal case at the University of Pittsburgh illustrates this
difficulty (Lynn, 2004). A group of investigators published a paper on a project described as QI, but the
university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) retrospectively identified it as meeting the criteria for
research. The issue was appealed to the Federal Office for Human Research Protection, which eventually
ruled that the project was research and should have had an IRB review (Lynn, 2004). Consequently, the
investigators were criminally and civilly liable for any negative repercussions experienced by the study
participants.
Provincial laws in Canada, such as Alberta’s Health Information Act, explicitly require that research
– but not QI – projects receive ethics approval from a Research Ethics Board (REB). This REB approval
dichotomy has generated much academic controversy and debate. Because of the difficulty differentiating
research and QI, investigators may identify their projects incorrectly. Projects inaccurately dubbed QI that
more closely resemble research may bypass REB review and approval, but not the ethical and legal
implications of conducting a study without it. Because REB review is “quite formal, rather ponderous and
costly” (p. 68, Lynn, 2004) and “overburdened, understaffed and under funded,” (p. 320, Davidoff &
Batalden, 2005) projects classified as QI can generally begin at a quicker pace than research. As more of

these inappropriately (un)reviewed projects surface, the long-avoided issue facing health care providers of
correctly distinguishing research and QI is becoming one of greater significance and concern (Lynn,
2004); it is especially true for those, like nursing informaticians, who use personal health information.
Differentiating Research and QI
Distinguishing between research and QI is not always a straightforward task. Many of the best evaluation
methods overlap with methods used in research (Jarvis, 2000); thus, many QI projects exhibit research-
like qualities and research projects exhibit QI-like qualities. However, using the characteristics of a study
helps to differentiate research and QI, thereby aiding investigators in ensuring their projects are forwarded
to the appropriate ethics review. Three criteria help differentiate research and QI: a study’s intents and
purposes, degree of generalizability and associated risks.
The literature shows that a useful tool in differentiating a study as research or QI are the intents and
purposes of a study (Beyea & Nicoll, 1998; Koschnitzke, McCracken & Pranulus, 1992; Lee, Anderson,
Pringer Boone & Henderson, 1992; Martin, 1995; Mcnelly, 1997; Newhouse & Pettit, 2006; Patton, 1993;
Pritham, 1996; Saunders, 1993; Solberg, Mosser & McDonald, 1997; Thurston, Watson & Reimer, 1993).
QI intends to increase the efficacy of processes at a local or internal level as part of ongoing care, tailoring
studies to the needs of the study participants themselves (e.g., implementing a computerized model of care
tailored specifically to a geriatric dementia unit) (Committee on Assessing the System for Protecting
Human Research Participants (CASPHRP), 2002). Conversely, research intends to generate knowledge
and establish fact, independent of routine care (e.g., testing and comparing the efficacy of a computerized
model of care designed for use in all health care settings).
The audience the project is intended for is another fundamental difference between research and QI.
Research is associated with breadth of application and QI is associated with depth (Diamond, 2004,
Reinhardt & Ray, 2003). Research projects intend to be generalizable, with acquired knowledge aimed at
the entire scientific community in order to benefit a large population (Department of Health and Human
Services, 2005; Diamond, 2004; Perneger, 2004, Reinhardt & Ray, 2003). QI intends to satisfy a local or
internal population, with a smaller, more distinct, target audience, specifically members of the local or
internal population (i.e. staff, patients, caregivers and the study participants themselves) (CASPHRP,
2002; Perneger, 2004, Reinhardt & Ray, 2003). Research results are not assumed to be immediately
incorporated into local care delivery, whereas QI studies are conducted almost solely on that principle

(CASPHRP, 2002; Department of Health and Human Services, 2005). An example would be the
development of a standard set of behavior terminologies. Approaching this project from a QI perspective,
investigators would tailor their set of terminologies to their ward, systematically going through cases
looking for specific identifiers. Conversely, a similar research project would be concerned with the
applicability of the set of terminologies to more than just one ward. Therefore, the behavior terminology
set would need general categories that permit its application to a larger population. Its reliability and
validity would need pilot testing on external populations before any sort of practical application would be
possible.
In the interest of generalizing to a broad population, research, in direct contrast to QI, imposes risks
beyond those of everyday care (Bellin & Dubler, 2001; Casarett, Karlawish & Sugarman, 2000, Reinhardt
& Ray, 2003). To establish a causal relation between two variables that can generalize to a larger
population research must eliminate or, at the very least, control any potentially confounding variables.
This often involves establishing a baseline or null variable or the use of controls, strengthening causation,
but adding risks and ethical issues associated with multiple treatment assignment (Bellin & Dubler, 2001,
Jarvis 2000). Processes that go above and beyond routine care for the purpose of generalization have
many associated risks, necessitating REB approval (Casarett, Karlawish & Sugarman, 2000). These
projects are considered research. QI, on the other hand, tends to use standards or benchmarks from
previously established best practices so that objective referencing can occur without deviating from
routine care and creating additional risk (Diamond, 2004). Consequently, REB approval is not necessary.
Research is associated with having greater than minimal risk, whereas QI projects have minimal risk
(Casarett, Karlawish & Sugarman, 2000; Harris, 1997; Lo & Groman, 2003). According to the Canadian
Tri-Council Policy Statement on Research Involving Humans, minimal risk is risk “no greater than [the
risks] encountered by the subject in those aspects of his or her everyday life” (p. 1.5). To illustrate, an
example would be testing a software program designed to increase the accuracy of medication. A research
trial would use differing experimental groups; one ward could use the new software and one (control) no
software at all. In a QI trial, there would be no need to have a null comparison group because of the use of
previously established standards or benchmarks as a reference, consequently all wards would receive the
same treatment (Diamond, 2004). Because of the differential use of the software programs in the research
trial, scenarios could arise in which study participants are put at risk greater than minimal risk (e.g. if the

new software proved to be less effective than having no software, the study participants in the “new
software” group would be at a higher risk of receiving incorrect medication). Research projects must be
reviewed and approved by REBs to ensure that the risk is acceptable given the potential benefits of the
study.
Using publication as a means to differentiate between research and QI is the subject of ongoing
debate in the literature. Generally, QI dissemination is at the local level (i.e. staff, caregivers, patients,
etc.) whereas research dissemination is on a broad scale (i.e. to journals, conferences, etc.) According to
Lynn, et al. (2007), some believe that if a project is published it is intended for a generalized audience and
therefore, regardless of the characteristics of the study itself, is a research study. Consequently, QI
manuscripts may be rejected because they have not received REB approval, regardless of the fact that
review was neither ethically or legally required (Lynn, et al., 2007). To categorize all manuscripts as
research would prevent the knowledge acquired from QI studies from dissemination and application
elsewhere (Davidoff & Batalden, 2005). Byers and Aragon (2003) maintain that QI studies can be applied
beyond the original intended audience. Disseminating QI studies’ valuable knowledge acquired from local
improvement studies, i.e., QI studies, may serve to benefit beyond the boundaries of its original audience
(Lynn, et al., 2007), as has been demonstrated by the emergence and prosperity of QI journals (i.e.,
Quality and Safety in Healthcare, International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, etc.).
Therefore, as the literature suggests, publication should not be used as a definitive distinguishing criterion
between research and QI.
Conclusions
Nursing informaticians are in a unique position to use research and QI to connect nursing practice,
information and technology to create evidence-based knowledge and improvements in care. The ability to
distinguish between research and QI, and subsequently ensure studies receive appropriate ethics approval,
is an essential component of furthering NI. Three characteristics aid in the identification of any study as
research or QI: a study’s purpose, degree of generalizability, and associated risks. The use of properly
identified, reviewed and applied research and QI benefits NI as a field, health care as a whole, and most
importantly, patients.

References
Bellin, E., & Dubler, N. (2001). The quality improvement – research divide and the need for external
oversight. American Journal of Public Health, 91(9), 1512-1517.
Beyea, S. C., & Nicoll, L. H. (1998). Is it research or quality improvement? Association of Perioperative
Registered Nurses Journal, 68, 117-119.
Byers, J. F., & Aragon, E. D. (2003). What quality improvement professionals need to know about IRBs.
Journal for Healthcare Quality, 25(4), 4-9.
Casarett, D., Karlawish, J. H. T., & Sugarman, J. (2000). Determining when quality improvement
initiatives should be considered research; Proposed criteria and potential implications. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 283, 2275-2280.
Committee on Assessing the System for Protecting Human Research Participants. [CASPHRP] (2002).
Responsible research: A systems approach to protecting research participants. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.
Davidoff, F., & Batalden, P. (2005). Toward stronger evidence on quality improvement. Draft publication
guidelines: the beginning of a consensus project. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 14, 319-325.
Department of Health and Human Services (2005) Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 Public Welfare
Part 46: Protection of Human Subjects. Retrieved on June 22, 2007 from
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/documents/OHRPRegulations.pdf
improvement projects: How do we protect patients’ rights? American Journal of Medical Quality, 19(1),
25-27.
Goossen, W. T. F. (1996). Nursing information management and processing: A framework and definition
for systems analysis, design, and evaluation. International Journal of Biomedical Computing, 40, 187-
195.
Hannah, K., & Kennedy, M. A. (2007). Representing nursing practice: Evaluating the effectiveness of a
nursing classification system. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 39(1), 58-79.
Harrington, L. (2007, May/June). Quality improvement, research, and the institutional review board.
Journal for Healthcare Quality Online, 195. Retrieved June 22, 2007 from
http://www.nahq.org/journal/ce/article.html?article_id=277
Harris, M. R. (1997). Code of ethics and scientific integrity: What relevance to outcome activities?
Advanced Practice Nursing Quarterly, 3, 36-43.
Huston, P., & Naylor, D. (1996). Health services research: Reporting on studies using secondary data
sources. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 155(12), 1697-1702.
Jarvis, H. (2000). Differentiating among research, evaluation and measures to assure quality. Healthcare
Management Forum, 13(4), 34-36.
Koschnitzke, L., McCracken, S. C., & Pranulis, M. F. (1992). Issues in clinical nursing research: Ethical
considerations for quality assurance versus scientific research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 14,
392-396.
Lee, L., Anderson, V., Piringer, P., Boone, J., & Henderson, D. K. (1992). An epidemiologic approach to
quality improvement, quality assurance, and clinical research. Infection Control and Hospital

Epidemiology, 13, 545-552.
Lo, B., & Groman, M. (2003). Oversight of quality improvement. Archives of Internal Medicine, 163,
1481-1486.
Lynn, J., Baily, M.A., Bottrell, M., Jennings, B, Levine, R.J., Davidoff, F., et. al. (2007). The ethics of
using quality improvement methods in health care. Annals of Internal Medicine, 146, 666-673.
Lynn, J. (2004). When does quality improvement count as research? Human subject protection and
theories of knowledge. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 13, 67-70.
Martin, P. A. (1995). Is it research? Applied Nursing Research, 8, 199-201.
Nerenz, D. R., Stoltz, P. K., & Jordan, J. (2003). Quality improvement and the need for IRB review.
Quality Management in Health Care, 12(3), 159-170.
Newhouse, R., & Pettit, J. (2006). The slippery slope differentiating between quality improvement and
research. Journal of Nursing Administration, 36(4), 211-219.
Patton, M. D. (1993). Action research and the process of continual quality improvement in a cancer
center. Oncology Nursing Forum, 20, 751-755.
Perneger, T.V. (2004). Why we need ethical oversight of quality improvement projects. International
Journal for Quality in Health Care, 16(5), 343-344.
Pritham, C. H. (1996). Quality improvement process/outcome research. Journal of Rehabilitation
Research and Development, 3, vii-viii.
Reinhardt, A., & Ray, L. (2003). Differentiating quality improvement from research. Applied Nursing
Research, 16(1), 2-8.
Saunders, M. J. (1993). Director of quality improvement research. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 7, 39-
43.
Simpson, M. R., Stevens, P., & Kovach, C. R. (2007). Nurses’ experience with the clinical application of
a research-based nursing protocol in a long-term care setting. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(6), 1021-
1028.
Solberg, L. I., Mosser, G., & McDonald, S. (1997). The three faces of performance measurement:
Improvement, accountability, and research. Joint Commission Journal of Quality Improvement, 23, 135-
147.
Thurston, N. E., Watson, L. A., & Reimer, M. A. (1993). Research or quality improvement. Journal of
Nursing Administration, 23, 46-49.
Working Group of the Three Federal Funding councils: Medical Research Council of Canada, Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada. (1998). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving
Humans. Retrieved on June 16, 2007 from http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~wfb/ethics/ethics-e.pdf
Authors’ Bios:
Theodore D. Cosco
Mr. Cosco is a third year BSc Specialization Psychology Industrial Internship Program student at the

University of Alberta. Currently he holds a Research Intern position at CapitalCare where he has been
involved with developing and disseminating research and quality improvement projects as well as creating
and implementing a behavior observation tool used to decrease psychotropic drug use. His research
interests include research ethics and the interface between technology and practice.
Alana Knopp, BA
Ms. Knopp earned a BA in Psychology from the University of Alberta in 2007. She holds the position of
Research Assistant at CapitalCare and manages the organization's longitudinal database that contains
information about Alzheimer residents and has been involved in several evaluation and research projects
regarding the relocation of long-term care residents. She is enjoying her experiences with applied research
projects before choosing a graduate degree program. Her main research interest is the effect of health care
policy and service delivery on the quality of health care as well as the individual psychosocial experience.
Doris L. Milke, MSc, PhD
Dr. Milke is the Senior Researcher for CapitalCare, where she heads a research unit that supports
corporate research and engages in original research funded through external agencies. She chairs a
Research Facilitation Committee for her organization. She is an Adjunct Associate Professor in the
Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, the Faculty of Nursing, and the Department of Psychology at the
University of Alberta. Currently she is an investigator on two research teams funded by the Canadian
Health Services Research Fund that are studying the delivery of facility-based continuing care.