A Survey of Academic Medical Centers to Distinguish Between Quality Improvement and Research Activities

Center for Drug Policy, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, WI 53792, USA.
Quality management in health care 10/2006; 15(4):215-20. DOI: 10.1097/00019514-200610000-00003
Source: PubMed


Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are charged with ensuring the protection of humans enrolled in research. IRB activities are governed by the United States Office for Human Research Protections, which does not clearly differentiate quality improvement from research. More clear standards are needed so that the protection of human subjects (including their right to privacy) can be ensured and health care providers can efficiently meet their objective of improving patient care through quality improvement efforts. While past commentaries on this subject have provided some guidance, no standard definitions exist that distinguish "quality improvement" from "research."
We conducted a national survey of IRBs serving academic medical centers to determine whether local guidelines exist that make this distinction, and if so, what criteria are used to guide decision making.
On the basis of the findings of our survey, we propose a decision algorithm to guide IRBs and quality improvement oversight committees as they define local policies that distinguish research projects from quality improvement efforts.
The decision algorithm should result in greater ability to conduct quality improvement work in an efficient manner without compromising the protection of human subjects. The criteria identified are consistent with, but clearer than, the exemption standards provided in the common rule.

9 Reads

  • No preview · Article · Jun 2007 · Annals of internal medicine

  • No preview · Article · Sep 2008
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Working with an institutional review board (IRB) to ensure compliance and ethical conduct of research involving human subjects is discussed. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and Food and Drug Administration regulations for the conduct of human research are grounded in the principles of the Belmont Report. By establishing the requirements for the function and operation of the IRB, the criteria needed for the review and approval of research, and the requirements for obtaining and documenting informed consent, the federal regulations help ensure the safety, rights and welfare of subjects. In developing research protocols and submissions to the IRB, the investigator should include clear, detailed information that addresses the regulatory requirements for the review and approval of research. Before starting a research study, review and approval by the IRB is required unless the study is determined to be minimal risk and fits one of the defined categories. Some research projects involving observation of public behavior, collection of anonymous surveys of nonvulnerable individuals in which the information is not considered sensitive, and evaluation of standard education practices may be exempt from DHHS regulations. Informed consent is central to the protection of human subjects and is required unless the IRB allows a waiver or alteration of informed consent. Once the study is approved, the investigator must conduct the study as approved by the IRB and continue to meet the regulatory requirements related to modifications, reporting unanticipated events, and continuing review. IRB review is integral to ensuring regulatory compliance and ethical conduct of research involving human subjects. Working closely with the IRB or colleagues who have had experience with the IRB will help junior investigators better understand the IRB submission and review process.
    No preview · Article · Feb 2009 · American journal of health-system pharmacy: AJHP: official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists
Show more