Lo Bernard, Groman Michelle
Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco 94143, USA.
Arch Intern Med. 2003 Jun 23;163(12):1481-6. doi: 10.1001/archinte.163.12.1481.
Quality improvement (QI) may substantially improve patient outcomes while posing little risk to subjects. However, the term quality improvement is used to refer to a broad range of projects, which vary widely in the potential benefits and risks to participants. Some projects raise ethical concerns. An explicit protocol for the ethical review of QI would benefit both patients and leaders of QI projects. If a project is considered research rather than QI, review by an institutional review board and informed consent from subjects may be required. In contrast, QI projects may require little oversight beyond what is already in place for clinical care. However, a monolithic approach to oversight of QI is inappropriate in light of the variation in benefits and risks of QI projects and their overlap with research. The key ethical issue is not the classification of a project as QI or research, but the balance of anticipated benefits and harms in the project. We propose a protocol for independent review of QI projects and patient consent that will protect subjects from serious harm while encouraging QI projects that will substantially benefit participants and pose only minimal risk.
质量改进(QI)在给受试者带来极小风险的同时,可能会显著改善患者的治疗效果。然而,“质量改进”一词被用于指代广泛的项目,这些项目在对参与者的潜在益处和风险方面差异很大。一些项目引发了伦理问题。针对质量改进进行伦理审查的明确方案将使患者和质量改进项目的负责人都受益。如果一个项目被视为研究而非质量改进,可能需要机构审查委员会进行审查并获得受试者的知情同意。相比之下,质量改进项目可能除了现有的临床护理监督之外几乎不需要其他监督。然而,鉴于质量改进项目的益处和风险存在差异以及它们与研究的重叠,采用单一的质量改进监督方法是不合适的。关键的伦理问题不是将一个项目归类为质量改进还是研究,而是该项目中预期的益处和危害之间的平衡。我们提出了一个针对质量改进项目进行独立审查和患者同意的方案,该方案将保护受试者免受严重伤害,同时鼓励那些将使参与者大幅受益且仅带来最小风险的质量改进项目。