Goldstein Cory E, Weijer Charles, Brehaut Jamie C, Campbell Marion, Fergusson Dean A, Grimshaw Jeremy M, Hemming Karla, Horn Austin R, Taljaard Monica
Rotman Institute of Philosophy, Western University, London, Canada.
Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Trials. 2018 Jun 25;19(1):334. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2724-2.
Quality and service improvement (QSI) research employs a broad range of methods to enhance the efficiency of healthcare delivery. QSI research differs from traditional healthcare research and poses unique ethical questions. Since QSI research aims to generate knowledge to enhance quality improvement efforts, should it be considered research for regulatory purposes? Is review by a research ethics committee required? Should healthcare providers be considered research participants? If participation in QSI research entails no more than minimal risk, is consent required? The lack of consensus on answers to these questions highlights the need for ethical guidance.
Three distinct approaches to classifying QSI research in accordance with existing ethical principles and regulations can be found in the literature. In the first approach, QSI research is viewed as distinct from other types of healthcare research and does not require regulation. In the second approach, QSI research falls within regulatory guidelines but is exempt from research ethics committee review. In the third approach, QSI research is deemed to be part of the learning healthcare system and, as such, is subject to a different set of ethical principles entirely. In this paper, we critically assess each of these views.
While none of these approaches is entirely satisfactory, we argue that use of the ethical principles governing research provides the best means of addressing the numerous questions posed by QSI research.
质量与服务改进(QSI)研究采用广泛的方法来提高医疗服务的效率。QSI研究不同于传统的医疗保健研究,并提出了独特的伦理问题。由于QSI研究旨在产生知识以加强质量改进工作,那么从监管目的来看,它是否应被视为研究?是否需要经过研究伦理委员会的审查?医疗保健提供者是否应被视为研究参与者?如果参与QSI研究带来的风险不超过最小风险,是否需要获得同意?对这些问题答案缺乏共识凸显了对伦理指导的需求。
在文献中可以找到三种根据现有伦理原则和法规对QSI研究进行分类的不同方法。在第一种方法中,QSI研究被视为与其他类型的医疗保健研究不同,不需要进行监管。在第二种方法中,QSI研究属于监管指南的范畴,但可免于研究伦理委员会的审查。在第三种方法中,QSI研究被视为学习型医疗保健系统的一部分,因此完全受另一套伦理原则的约束。在本文中,我们对这些观点进行了批判性评估。
虽然这些方法都不完全令人满意,但我们认为,运用指导研究的伦理原则是解决QSI研究所带来众多问题的最佳途径。