Ethical frameworks for quality improvement activities: an analysis of international practice

Author:

Naughton Corina1,Meehan Elaine1ORCID,Lehane Elaine1,Landers Ciara1,Flaherty Sarah Jane1,Lane Aoife1,Landers Margaret1,Kilty Caroline1,Saab Mohamad1,Goodwin John1,Walshe Nuala1,Wills Teresa1,Mccarthy Vera1,Murphy Siobhan1,Mccarthy Joan1,Cummins Helen1,Madden Deirdre2,Hegarty Josephine1

Affiliation:

1. Catherine McAuley School of Nursing and Midwifery, University College Cork, College Road, Cork T12 AK54, Ireland

2. School of Law, University College Cork, Aras na Laoi, Cork T12 T656, Ireland

Abstract

Abstract Purpose To examine international approaches to the ethical oversight and regulation of quality improvement and clinical audit in healthcare systems Data sources We searched grey literature including websites of national research and ethics regulatory bodies and health departments of selected countries. Study selection National guidance documents were included from six countries: Ireland, England, Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America and Canada. Data extraction Data were extracted from 19 documents using an a priori framework developed from the published literature. Results We organized data under five themes: ethical frameworks; guidance on ethical review; consent, vulnerable groups and personal health data. Quality improvement activity tended to be outside the scope of the ethics frameworks in most countries. Only New Zealand had integrated national ethics standards for both research and quality improvement. Across countries, there is consensus that this activity should not be automatically exempted from ethical review but requires proportionate review or organizational oversight for minimal risk projects. In the majority of countries, there is a lack of guidance on participant consent, use of personal health information and inclusion of vulnerable groups in routine quality improvement. Conclusion Where countries fail to provide specific ethics frameworks for quality improvement, guidance is dispersed across several organizations which may lack legal certainty. Our review demonstrates a need for appropriate oversight and responsive infrastructure for quality improvement underpinned by ethical frameworks that build equivalence with research oversight. It outlines aspects of good practice, especially The New Zealand framework that integrates research and quality improvement ethics.

Funder

National Patient Safety Office, Department of Health, Republic of Ireland

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy,General Medicine

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3