Abstract
Quality improvement (QI) is an important function of learning health systems, and public policy should promote QI activities. Use of systematic methodologies in QI has prompted substantial confusion regarding when QI is human subjects research under the Common Rule, and this confusion persists with the revised Rule. Difficulty distinguishing research from QI imposes costs on the quality improvement process. I offer guidance to IRBs to mitigate these costs and suggest a new regulatory exclusion for minimal risk quality improvement activities.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Health Policy,General Medicine,Issues, ethics and legal aspects
Reference36 articles.
1. 31. Snapshot of U.S. Health Systems, 2016, Agency for Health-care Research and Quality, available at (last visited Jan. 1, 2019).
2. The Views of Quality Improvement Professionals and Comparative Effectiveness Researchers on Ethics, IRBs, and Oversight
3. “An Instrument to Differentiate between Clinical Research and Quality Improvement,”;Ogrinc;IRB,2013
4. 33. See Rolnick, supra note 11, at 7.
Cited by
2 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
1. Challenges of Artificial Intelligence Review in a Soft Law Environment;IEEE Technology and Society Magazine;2021-12
2. Introduction;Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics;2019