Differentiating research and quality improvement activities: A scoping review and implications for clinical scholarship.
Journal
Journal of clinical nursing
ISSN: 1365-2702
Titre abrégé: J Clin Nurs
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9207302
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Sep 2021
Historique:
revised:
11
11
2020
received:
22
09
2020
accepted:
10
12
2020
pubmed:
20
1
2021
medline:
7
8
2021
entrez:
19
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Differentiating activities that are research or quality improvement (QI) is challenging. Compare tools that distinguish research from QI and evaluate the utility of tools to determine whether institutional review board (IRB) approval is required for a test-project. Scoping review of the literature to identify tools that distinguish QI from research. Two reviewers independently screened records in PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and Google Scholar and extracted information from tools. Inclusion criteria were English language peer-reviewed publications or publicly available tools with scoring systems to differentiate between research and QI. The reporting of this review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. We then applied a test-project to evaluate the utility of the tools. One-hundred forty sources were reviewed; 13 met inclusion criteria. Tools consistently used project intent/purpose, design and intervention as differentiating criteria; additional criteria varied. Five studies described tool development, and one reported that the tool had been tested. Our application of a test-project proved challenging as tools commonly presented research and QI as discrete activities. Based on the core criteria common across tools to distinguish research from QI, we propose a simple four-criteria decision tool for assessing the need for IRB submission.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Differentiating activities that are research or quality improvement (QI) is challenging.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
Compare tools that distinguish research from QI and evaluate the utility of tools to determine whether institutional review board (IRB) approval is required for a test-project.
METHODS
METHODS
Scoping review of the literature to identify tools that distinguish QI from research. Two reviewers independently screened records in PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and Google Scholar and extracted information from tools. Inclusion criteria were English language peer-reviewed publications or publicly available tools with scoring systems to differentiate between research and QI. The reporting of this review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. We then applied a test-project to evaluate the utility of the tools.
FINDINGS
RESULTS
One-hundred forty sources were reviewed; 13 met inclusion criteria. Tools consistently used project intent/purpose, design and intervention as differentiating criteria; additional criteria varied. Five studies described tool development, and one reported that the tool had been tested. Our application of a test-project proved challenging as tools commonly presented research and QI as discrete activities.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the core criteria common across tools to distinguish research from QI, we propose a simple four-criteria decision tool for assessing the need for IRB submission.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
2480-2488Informations de copyright
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2006). The essentials of doctoral education for advanced nursing practice. American Association of Colleges of Nursing.
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2008). The essentials of baccalaureate education for professional nursing practice. Retrieved from https://www.aacnnursing.org/Portals/42/Publications/BaccEssentials08.pdf
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2010). The research focused doctoral program in nursing. Pathways to excellence. American Association of Colleges of Nursing.
Carter, E. J., Mastro, K., Vose, C., Rivera, R., & Larson, E. L. (2017). Clarifying the conundrum: Evidence-based practice, quality improvement, or research?: The clinical scholarship continuum. Journal of Nursing Administration, 47(5), 266-270. https://doi.org/10.1097/nna.0000000000000477
CHOP - Rachel Nosowsky. (2006). Quality improvement or research worksheet. Retrieved from https://irb.research.chop.edu/sites/default/files/documents/quality_improvement_or_research_worksheet.pdf
Cioletti, A., Marko, K., & Berger, J. S. (2017). Institutional review board checklist for trainee quality improvement project approvals. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 9(3), 371-372. https://doi.org/10.4300/jgme-d-16-00740.1
Duke University Health System - Human Research Protection, P. (2016). Quality improvement activities in health care versus research. Retrieved from https://irb.duhs.duke.edu/policies-and-regulations/policies/quality-improvement-qi-vs-research-policy-and-checklist
Foster, J. (2013). Differentiating quality improvement and research activities. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 27(1), 10-13. https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0b013e3182776db5
Hebrew Senior Life. (2017). Determining quality improvement vs. research activity. In Marcus institute for aging. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=15&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwitmNGS1p7mAhVtleAKHSuJD_IQFjAOegQIBxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.marcusinstituteforaging.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffiles%2FQIvsResearch%25281%2529.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2
Institute of Medicine. (2003). Health professions education: A bridge to quality. The National Academies Press.
Johnson, N., Vermeulen, L., & Smith, K. M. (2006). A survey of academic medical centers to distinguish between quality improvement and research activities. Quality Management in Health Care, 15(4), 215-220. https://doi.org/10.1097/00019514-200610000-00003
Kring, D. L. (2008). Research and quality improvement: different processes, different evidence. Medsurg Nursing: Official Journal of the Academy of. Medical-surgical Nurses, 17(3), 162-169, quiz 170.
M. G. H. Partners Health. (2012). Clinical quality improvement/measurement checklist. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&ved=2ahUKEwitmNGS1p7mAhVtleAKHSuJD_IQFjANegQIBRAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mghpcs.org%2FMunnCenter%2FDocuments%2FResearch_Day%2FClinical_QI_Checklist.doc&usg=AOvVaw2vuizmsj-haftTqskDMtg_
McNett, M., & Lawry, K. (2009). Research and quality improvement activities: When is institutional review board review needed? Journal of Neuroscience Nursing, 41(6), 344-347.
Medical University of South Carolina. (2019). QI program evaluation self-certification tool. Retrieved from https://research.musc.edu/resources/ori/irb/submissions/qi-tool
Ottawa Health Science Network Research Ethics Board. (2016). Is your project research or quality improvement? guideline & checklist. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi0tZ_B2p7mAhWQzlkKHesOA2s4ChAWMAN6BAgBEAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ohri.ca%2Fohsn-reb%2Fforms%2FChecklist%2520Research%2520or%2520QI%2520-%2520revised%2520November%2520
Ryan, M., & Rosario, R. (2012). Creating staff confidence in distinguishing between performance improvement and research studies: a user-friendly worksheet. Journal of Nursing Administration, 42(7-8), 369-374. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0b013e3182619345
SIGMA THETA TAU INTERNATIONAL. (1999). Clinical scholarship resource paper. Retrieved from https://www.sigmanursing.org/docs/default-source/position-papers/clinical_scholarship_paper.pdf
St. Joseph’s Health Centre Toronto. (2014). Research versus quality improvement guideline & checklist. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&ved=2ahUKEwi0tZ_B2p7mAhWQzlkKHesOA2s4ChAWMAJ6BAgCEAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.stjoestoronto.ca%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F01%2FSJHC-REB-Research-vs.-QI-Guideline-Checklist-July-24-2014-2.d
TriHealth - Bethesda, F. (2015). Quality improvment vs. research checklist. Retrieved from. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=170&ved=2ahUKEwjS37Wj4Z7mAhUnneAKHdiBDak4oAEQFjAJegQICRAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bethesdafoundation.com%2Fwhat-we-support%2FQuality-Improvement-vs-Research-Checklist.aspx&usg=AOvVaw1D21UKjb5jDqE
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2016). Permitted Uses and Disclosures: Exchange for Health Care Operations. In: The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, ed. 45 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 164506(c)(4)2016.
Virginia Commonwealth University. (2019). Quality improvement vs. research - Do I need IRB approval? Retrieved from https://research.vcu.edu/human_research/research_qi_guidance.pdf