Preserving moral quality in research, audit, and quality improvement

Quality and Safety in Health Care

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 11-12

  Doyal, L ^a  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFIDENTIALITY; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN RIGHTS; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL AUDIT; MORALITY; NOTE; RESEARCH ETHICS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ETHICS, RESEARCH; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; MANAGEMENT AUDIT; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT;

EID: 1242306668     PISSN: 14753898     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2003.008680     Document Type: Note

References (6)

1. Lynn J. When does quality improvement count as research? Human subjects protections and theories of knowledge. Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13:67-70.
2. Wilson A, Baker R, Thompson J. Differentiating between audit and research: postal survey of health authorities' views. BMJ 1999;319;1235.
3. Cretin S, Lynn J, Batalden PB, et al. Should patients in quality improvement activities have the same protections as participants in research studies? JAMA 2000;284;1786.
4. National Health & Medical Research Council. When does quality assurance in health care require independent ethical review? Canberra: NHMRC, 2003:1-13.
5. Bellin E, Dubler NN. The quality improvement-research divide and the need for external oversight. Am J Public Health 2001;91:1512-7.
6. Doyal L. Journals should not publish research to which patients have not given fully informed consent - with three exceptions. BMJ 1997;314:1107-11.