Oversight on the borderline: Quality improvement and pragmatic research

Clinical Trials

Volumn 12, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 457-466

  Finkelstein, Jonathan A ^a   Brickman, Andrew L ^b   Capron, Alexander ^c   Ford, Daniel E ^d   Gombosev, Adrijana ^e   Greene, Sarah M ^f   Iafrate, R Peter ^g   Kolaczkowski, Laura ^h   Pallin, Sarah C ⁱ   Pletcher, Mark J ^j   Staman, Karen L ^k   Vazquez, Miguel A ^l   Sugarman, Jeremy ^m  

^a BOSTON CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b Health Choice Network   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^f PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON   (United States)

ⁱ LOUISIANA PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^j UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^k CHB Wordsmith Inc   (United States)

^l UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS   (United States)

^m JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

ethics; health care operations; patient engagement; pragmatic clinical trials; Quality improvement; research; stakeholder engagement

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; QUALITY CONTROL; RESEARCH; RESEARCH ETHICS; REVIEW; STUDY DESIGN; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); ETHICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; STANDARDS; UNITED STATES;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HUMANS; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; RESEARCH DESIGN; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84942915703     PISSN: 17407745     EISSN: 17407753     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1740774515597682     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Hamilton Lopez M, Holve E, Rein A, et al. Involving patients and consumers in research: new opportunities for meaningful engagement in research and quality improvement. Electronic Data Methods Forum, Academy Health, 2012, http://repository.academyhealth.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=edm-briefs
2. Casarett D, Karlawish JH, Sugarman J,. Determining when quality improvement initiatives should be considered research: proposed criteria and potential implications. JAMA 2000; 283: 2275-2280.
3. Faden RR, Kass NE, Goodman SN, et al. An ethics framework for a learning health care system: a departure from traditional research ethics and clinical ethics. Hastings Cent Rep 2013; 43: S16-S27.
4. OHRP and standard-of-care research. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 2125-2126.
5. Lynn J, Baily MA, Bottrell M, et al. The ethics of using quality improvement methods in health care. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 666-673.
6. Langley GJ, Moen RD, Nolan KM, et al. The improvement guide: a practical approach to enhancing organizational performance. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2009.
7. The Joint Commission. Improving Americas hospitals: the Joint Commissions annual report on quality and safety., http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/2010-Annual-Report.pdf (2010,. accessed 18 May 2015).
8. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. CMS quality strategy., https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/QualityInitiativesGenInfo/CMS-Quality-Strategy.html (. accessed 18 May 2015).
9. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF,. Principles of biomedical ethics. 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
10. Sugarman J, Califf RM,. Ethics and regulatory complexities for pragmatic clinical trials. JAMA 2014; 311: 2381-2382.
11. US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Code of federal regulations. HHS.gov, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html (. acc- essed 8 October 2014).
12. Ogrinc G, Nelson WA, Adams SM, et al. An instrument to differentiate between clinical research and quality improvement. IRB 2013; 35: 1-8.
13. Taylor HA, Pronovost PJ, Sugarman J,. Ethics, oversight and quality improvement initiatives. Qual Saf Health Care 2010; 19: 271-274.
14. Hagen B, OBeirne M, Desai S, et al. Innovations in the ethical review of health-related quality improvement and research: the Alberta Research Ethics Community Consensus Initiative (ARECCI). Healthc Policy 2007; 2: e164-e177.
15. 104th congress. Health insurance portability and accountability act of 1996. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/statute/hipaastatutepdf.pdf (. accessed 18 December 2013).
16. Taylor HA, Pronovost PJ, Faden RR, et al. The ethical review of health care quality improvement initiatives: findings from the field. Issue Brief 2010; 95: 1-12.
17. The breakthrough series: IHIs collaborative model for achieving breakthrough improvement (HI Innovation Series white paper). Boston, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement, http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/IHIWhitePapers/TheBreakthroughSeriesIHIsCollaborativeModelforAchievingBreakthroughImprovement.aspx (2003,. accessed 21 January 2015).
18. Doran KA, Henry SA, Anderson BJ,. Breakthrough change for adult cardiac surgery in a community-based cardiovascular program. Qual Manag Health Care 1998; 6: 29-36.
19. US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Draft guidance on disclosing reasonably foreseeable risks in research evaluating standards of care. HHS.gov, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/newsroom/rfc/comstdofcare.html (. accessed 15 December 2014).
20. Cho MK, Magnus D, Constantine M, et al. Attitudes toward risk and informed consent for research on medical practices: a cross-sectional survey. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162: 690-696.
21. US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). If I plan to carry out a quality improvement project and publish the results, does the intent to publish make my quality improvement project fit the regulatory definition of research? HHS.gov, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/faq/quality-improvement-activities/intent-to-publish.html (. accessed 15 December 2014).
22. Davidoff F, Batalden P, Stevens D, et al. Publication guidelines for quality improvement studies in health care: evolution of the SQUIRE project. BMJ 2009; 338: a3152.
23. Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, et al. An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2725-2732.
24. Kass N, Pronovost PJ, Sugarman J, et al. Controversy and quality improvement: lingering questions about ethics, oversight, and patient safety research. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2008; 34: 349-353.
25. Savel RH, Goldstein EB, Gropper MA,. Critical care checklists, the Keystone Project, and the Office for Human Research Protections: a case for streamlining the approval process in quality-improvement research. Crit Care Med 2009; 37: 725-728.
26. Miller FG, Emanuel EJ,. Quality-improvement research and informed consent. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 765-767.
27. Septimus EJ, Hayden MK, Kleinman K, et al. Does chlorhexidine bathing in adult intensive care units reduce blood culture contamination? A pragmatic cluster-randomized trial. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014; 35 (Suppl. 3): S17-S22.
28. NIH Health Care Systems Research. Improving chronic disease management with pieces (ICD-PiecesTM). https://www.nihcollaboratory.org/demonstration-projects/Pages/ICD-Pieces.aspx (. accessed 4 February 2015).
29. Ali J, Andrews JE, Somkin CP, et al. Harms, benefits, and the nature of interventions in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials, 2015; 12: 467-475.
30. Whicher DM, Miller JE, Dunham KM, et al. Gatekeepers for pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials, 2015; 12: 442-448.
31. Armstrong N, Herbert G, Aveling EL, et al. Optimizing patient involvement in quality improvement. Health Expect 2013; 16: e36-e47.
32. Committee on the Learning Health Care System in America, Institute of Medicine. Best care at lower cost: the path to continuously learning health care in America. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207225/ (2013, acce-ssed 28 2015).