Catherine McAuley School of Nursing and Midwifery, University College Cork, College Road, Cork T12 AK54, Ireland.
School of Law, University College Cork, Aras na Laoi, Cork T12 T656, Ireland.
Int J Qual Health Care. 2020 Nov 9;32(8):558-566. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzaa092.
To examine international approaches to the ethical oversight and regulation of quality improvement and clinical audit in healthcare systems.
We searched grey literature including websites of national research and ethics regulatory bodies and health departments of selected countries.
National guidance documents were included from six countries: Ireland, England, Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America and Canada.
Data were extracted from 19 documents using an a priori framework developed from the published literature.
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.
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.
考察国际上在医疗保健系统中对质量改进和临床审计的伦理监督和监管的方法。
我们搜索了灰色文献,包括国家研究和伦理监管机构以及选定国家的卫生部门的网站。
纳入了来自六个国家的国家指导文件:爱尔兰、英国、澳大利亚、新西兰、美利坚合众国和加拿大。
使用从已发表文献中发展而来的预先制定的框架,从 19 份文件中提取数据。
我们将数据组织在五个主题下:伦理框架;伦理审查指南;同意、弱势群体和个人健康数据。在大多数国家,质量改进活动往往不在伦理框架的范围内。只有新西兰为研究和质量改进制定了综合的国家伦理标准。在各国,普遍认为这项活动不应自动免于伦理审查,但需要对风险较低的项目进行适当的审查或组织监督。在大多数国家,对于参与者的同意、个人健康信息的使用以及将弱势群体纳入常规质量改进,缺乏指导。
在没有为质量改进提供具体伦理框架的国家,指导意见分散在几个可能缺乏法律确定性的组织中。我们的审查表明,需要有适当的监督和响应基础设施来支持质量改进,这些基础设施应以建立与研究监督等效的伦理框架为基础。它概述了一些良好的实践方面,特别是新西兰的框架,它将研究和质量改进的伦理结合在一起。