Suppr超能文献

在现有伦理原则范围内开展质量和服务改进研究。

Accommodating quality and service improvement research within existing ethical principles.

作者信息

Goldstein Cory E, Weijer Charles, Brehaut Jamie C, Campbell Marion, Fergusson Dean A, Grimshaw Jeremy M, Hemming Karla, Horn Austin R, Taljaard Monica

机构信息

Rotman Institute of Philosophy, Western University, London, Canada.

Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.

出版信息

Trials. 2018 Jun 25;19(1):334. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2724-2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

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.

MAIN BODY

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

摘要

背景

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。

正文

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。

结论

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。

相似文献

1
Accommodating quality and service improvement research within existing ethical principles.
Trials. 2018 Jun 25;19(1):334. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2724-2.
5
The ethical oversight of learning health care activities in Switzerland: a qualitative study.
Int J Qual Health Care. 2019 Oct 31;31(8):G81-G86. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzz045.
6
Stepped-wedge trials should be classified as research for the purpose of ethical review.
Clin Trials. 2019 Dec;16(6):580-588. doi: 10.1177/1740774519873322.
7
Beyond regulatory approaches to ethics: making space for ethical preparedness in healthcare research.
J Med Ethics. 2023 May;49(5):352-356. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2021-108102. Epub 2022 Jun 20.
8
What does 'quality' add? Towards an ethics of healthcare improvement.
J Med Ethics. 2020 Feb;46(2):118-122. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105635. Epub 2019 Nov 15.
9
The views of quality improvement professionals and comparative effectiveness researchers on ethics, IRBs, and oversight.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2015 Apr;10(2):132-44. doi: 10.1177/1556264615571558. Epub 2015 Feb 23.
10
Oversight on the borderline: Quality improvement and pragmatic research.
Clin Trials. 2015 Oct;12(5):457-66. doi: 10.1177/1740774515597682. Epub 2015 Sep 15.

引用本文的文献

1
Do Regulatory and Curriculum Requirements for Interprofessional Practice Align?
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2023 Nov 29;16:3675-3687. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S438791. eCollection 2023.
2
Quality Improvement in Canadian Nephrology: Key Considerations in Ensuring Thoughtful Ethical Oversight.
Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2022 Feb 27;9:20543581221077504. doi: 10.1177/20543581221077504. eCollection 2022.

本文引用的文献

1
The Common Rule, Updated.
N Engl J Med. 2017 Feb 16;376(7):613-615. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1700736. Epub 2017 Jan 19.
4
Ethics, regulation, and comparative effectiveness research: time for a change.
JAMA. 2014 Apr 16;311(15):1497-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.2144.
5
Informed consent, comparative effectiveness, and learning health care.
N Engl J Med. 2014 Feb 20;370(8):766-8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMhle1313674.
6
A prescription for ethical learning. Commentary.
Hastings Cent Rep. 2013 Jan-Feb;Spec No:S28-9. doi: 10.1002/hast.135.
8
The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials.
PLoS Med. 2012;9(11):e1001346. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001346. Epub 2012 Nov 20.
9
Requirements for ethics committee review for studies submitted to Implementation Science.
Implement Sci. 2011 Mar 31;6:32. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-32.
10
Controversy and quality improvement: lingering questions about ethics, oversight, and patient safety research.
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008 Jun;34(6):349-53. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(08)34044-6.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验