Differentiating between research, audit and quality improvement: Governance implications

Clinical Governance: An International Journal

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 98-107

  Hill, Sarah L ^a   Small, Neil ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Auditing; Governance; National Health Service; Quality improvement; Research; United Kingdom

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; MEDICAL AUDIT; MEDICAL ETHICS; METHODOLOGY; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; SOCIAL CARE; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 33646700212     PISSN: 14777274     EISSN: 17586038     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/14777270610660475     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Bauman, Z. (1993), Postmodern Ethics, Blackwell, Oxford.
2. Bayly, J. (2004), “Clinical audit does not escape the cosh”, British Medical Journal (Rapid Response), Vol. 329, p. 242.
3. Bellin, E. and Dubler, N.N. (2001), “The quality improvement-research divide and the need for external oversight”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 91, pp. 1512-17.
4. Beyea, S.C. and Nicoll, L.H. (1998), “Is it research or quality improvement?”, AORN Journal, Vol. 68, pp. 117-19.
5. Black, N. (1992), “The relationship between evaluative research and audit”, Journal of Public Health Medicine, Vol. 14, pp. 361-6.
6. Brett, A. and Grodin, M. (1991), “Ethical aspects of human experimentation in health services research”, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 265, pp. 1854-7.
7. Cassarett, D., Karlawish, J.H.T. and Sugarman, J. (2000), “Determining when quality improvement initiatives should be considered research: proposed criteria and potential implications”, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 283, pp. 2275-80.
8. Choo, V. (1998), “Thin line between research and audit”, Lancet, Vol. 352, pp. 337-8.
9. Closs, S.J. and Cheater, F.M. (1996), “Audit or research – what is the difference?”, Journal of Clinical Nursing, Vol. 5, pp. 249-56.
10. Cretin, S., Lynn, J., Batalden, P.B., Berwick, D.M. and Bisognano, M. (2000), “Should patients in quality improvement activities have the same protection as participants in research studies?”, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 284, p. 1786.
11. Dementia North (2005), “PDSA cycles”, available at: www.dementianorth.org.uk/dsc/DSCCollabModel.htm (accessed 15 September 2005).
12. Department of Health (1989a), Working for Patients, Cm 555, HMSO, London.
13. Department of Health (1989b), “Medical audit”, Working Paper No. 6, HMSO, London.
14. Department of Health (1998), A First Class Service: Quality in the New NHS, Department of Health, London.
15. Department of Health (2000), The NHS Plan, Department of Health, London.
16. Department of Health (2001), Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care, Department of Health, London.
17. Doyal, L. (2004), “Preserving moral quality in research, audit, and quality improvement”, Quality and Safety in Health Care, Vol. 13, pp. 11-12.
18. Doyal, L. and Gough, I. (1991), A Theory of Human Needs, Macmillan, London.
19. Koschnitzke, L., McCraken, S.C. and Pranulis, M.F. (1992), “Issues in clinical nursing research: ethical considerations for quality assurance versus scientific research”, West Journal of Nursing Research, Vol. 14, pp. 392-6.
20. Langley, C., Nolan, T., Nolan, C., Norman, C. and Provost, L. (1996), The Improvement Guide: A Practical Approach to Improving Organisational Performance, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
21. Layer, T. (2003), “Ethical conduct recommendations for quality improvement projects”, Journal of Healthcare Quality, Vol. 25, pp. 44-6.
22. Lo, B. and Groman, M. (2003), “Oversight of quality improvement: focusing on benefits and risks”, Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 163, pp. 1481-6.
23. Lynn, J. (2004), “When does quality improvement count as research? Human subject protection and theories of knowledge”, Quality and Safety in Health Care, Vol. 13, pp. 67-70.
24. Moore, A. (2002), “In a perfect world”, Nursing Standard, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 18-19.
25. Moss, F. and Thompson, R. (1996), “A new structure for quality improvement reports”, Quality in Health Care, Vol. 8, p. 76.
26. National Health and Medical Research Council (2003), When Does Quality Assurance in Health Care Require Independent Ethical Review?, National Health and Medical Research Council, Canberra.
27. Nerenz, D.R., Stoltz, P.K. and Jordan, J. (2003), “Quality improvement and the need for IRB review”, Quality Management in Health Care, Vol. 12, pp. 159-70.
28. NHS Modernisation Agency (2002), “Pursuing perfection”, available at: www.modern.nhs.uk (accessed 24 September 2002).
29. NHS Modernisation Agency (2003), Learning from Patient and Carer Experience: A Guide to Using Discovery Interviews to Improve Care, Department of Health, London.
30. Pritham, C. (1996), “Quality improvement process/outcomes research”, Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, Vol. 33, pp. vii-viii.
31. Reinhardt, A.C. and Ray, L.N. (2003), “Differentiating quality improvement from research”, Applied Nursing Research, Vol. 16, pp. 2-8.
32. Rix, G. and Cutting, K. (1996), “Clinical audit: the case for ethical scrutiny?”, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 9, pp. 18-20.
33. Royal College of Physicians of London (1996), Guidelines on the Practice of Ethics Committees in Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, 3rd ed., Royal College of Physicians of London, London.
34. Sen, B. (2004), “Research governance”, British Medical Journal (Rapid Response), Vol. 329, p. 242.
35. Smith, R. (1992), “Audit and research”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 305, pp. 905-6.
36. Smith, R. (2000), “Quality improvement reports: a new kind of article”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 321, p. 1428.
37. Solberg, L.I., Mosser, G. and McDonald, S. (1997), “The three faces of performance measurement: improvement, accountability, and research”, Journal of Quality Improvement, Vol. 23, pp. 135-47.
38. Vogelsang, J. (1999), “Quantitative research versus quality assurance, quality improvement, total quality management, and continuous quality improvement”, Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing, Vol. 14, pp. 78-81.
39. Wade, D.T. (2005), “Ethics, audit, and research: all shades of grey”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 303, pp. 468-71.
40. Warlow, C. (2004), “Clinical research under the cosh again”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 329, pp. 241-2.
41. Wilson, A., Grimshaw, G., Baker, R. and Thompson, J. (1999), “Differentiating between audit and research: postal survey of health authorities' views”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 319, p. 1235.