Cargando…

Quality Improvement in Canadian Nephrology: Key Considerations in Ensuring Thoughtful Ethical Oversight

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Quality improvement (QI) work is a cornerstone of health care, and a growing area within nephrology. With such growth comes the need to ensure that QI activities are implemented in an ethically responsible manner. The existing institutional research board (IRB) framework has large...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Glavinovic, Tamara, Hingwala, Jay, Harris, Claire
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8891853/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35251671
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20543581221077504
_version_ 1784662000283942912
author Glavinovic, Tamara
Hingwala, Jay
Harris, Claire
author_facet Glavinovic, Tamara
Hingwala, Jay
Harris, Claire
author_sort Glavinovic, Tamara
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Quality improvement (QI) work is a cornerstone of health care, and a growing area within nephrology. With such growth comes the need to ensure that QI activities are implemented in an ethically responsible manner. The existing institutional research board (IRB) framework has largely focused on reviewing the ethical suitability of traditional research projects, and it can be challenging to know if QI initiatives require formal ethics oversight. Several tools have been developed to assist in distinguishing between the two, such as the “A pRoject Ethics Community Consensus Initiative” tool. Our objective was to demonstrate how QI is distinct from research, to outline how QI-focused IRB process is used across Canada, and to develop a practical aid for clinicians embarking on QI-related projects. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: Publicly available institutional Web sites from academic and select nonacademic sites across Canada. METHODS: Institutional Web sites across all academic centers within Canada were examined to determine local QI-specific ethics review processes. We have provided examples of QI processes from select community sites. We have developed a tool to assist clinicians navigate the ethical challenges of QI projects and to determine whether their project may require ethics approval. KEY FINDINGS: This overview of the considerations of the research ethics approval process helps clinicians to determine whether IRB approval is required for QI studies. Examples of the current ethical processes employed in both academic and community institutions across Canada demonstrate the variability between centers. We have included examples of fictional nephrology-oriented QI initiatives to illustrate when ethics approval may be considered, along with a flowchart. This summary highlights the opportunity for QI-specific IRB review processes to be standardized across Canada, along with the need for creation of a separate stream with dedicated expertise for QI project review. LIMITATIONS: We did not do a formal environmental scan of the QI IRB review process in all hospital institutions across Canada.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8891853
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88918532022-03-04 Quality Improvement in Canadian Nephrology: Key Considerations in Ensuring Thoughtful Ethical Oversight Glavinovic, Tamara Hingwala, Jay Harris, Claire Can J Kidney Health Dis Quality Assurance and Improvement in Nephrology PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Quality improvement (QI) work is a cornerstone of health care, and a growing area within nephrology. With such growth comes the need to ensure that QI activities are implemented in an ethically responsible manner. The existing institutional research board (IRB) framework has largely focused on reviewing the ethical suitability of traditional research projects, and it can be challenging to know if QI initiatives require formal ethics oversight. Several tools have been developed to assist in distinguishing between the two, such as the “A pRoject Ethics Community Consensus Initiative” tool. Our objective was to demonstrate how QI is distinct from research, to outline how QI-focused IRB process is used across Canada, and to develop a practical aid for clinicians embarking on QI-related projects. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: Publicly available institutional Web sites from academic and select nonacademic sites across Canada. METHODS: Institutional Web sites across all academic centers within Canada were examined to determine local QI-specific ethics review processes. We have provided examples of QI processes from select community sites. We have developed a tool to assist clinicians navigate the ethical challenges of QI projects and to determine whether their project may require ethics approval. KEY FINDINGS: This overview of the considerations of the research ethics approval process helps clinicians to determine whether IRB approval is required for QI studies. Examples of the current ethical processes employed in both academic and community institutions across Canada demonstrate the variability between centers. We have included examples of fictional nephrology-oriented QI initiatives to illustrate when ethics approval may be considered, along with a flowchart. This summary highlights the opportunity for QI-specific IRB review processes to be standardized across Canada, along with the need for creation of a separate stream with dedicated expertise for QI project review. LIMITATIONS: We did not do a formal environmental scan of the QI IRB review process in all hospital institutions across Canada. SAGE Publications 2022-02-27 /pmc/articles/PMC8891853/ /pubmed/35251671 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20543581221077504 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Quality Assurance and Improvement in Nephrology
Glavinovic, Tamara
Hingwala, Jay
Harris, Claire
Quality Improvement in Canadian Nephrology: Key Considerations in Ensuring Thoughtful Ethical Oversight
title Quality Improvement in Canadian Nephrology: Key Considerations in Ensuring Thoughtful Ethical Oversight
title_full Quality Improvement in Canadian Nephrology: Key Considerations in Ensuring Thoughtful Ethical Oversight
title_fullStr Quality Improvement in Canadian Nephrology: Key Considerations in Ensuring Thoughtful Ethical Oversight
title_full_unstemmed Quality Improvement in Canadian Nephrology: Key Considerations in Ensuring Thoughtful Ethical Oversight
title_short Quality Improvement in Canadian Nephrology: Key Considerations in Ensuring Thoughtful Ethical Oversight
title_sort quality improvement in canadian nephrology: key considerations in ensuring thoughtful ethical oversight
topic Quality Assurance and Improvement in Nephrology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8891853/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35251671
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20543581221077504
work_keys_str_mv AT glavinovictamara qualityimprovementincanadiannephrologykeyconsiderationsinensuringthoughtfulethicaloversight
AT hingwalajay qualityimprovementincanadiannephrologykeyconsiderationsinensuringthoughtfulethicaloversight
AT harrisclaire qualityimprovementincanadiannephrologykeyconsiderationsinensuringthoughtfulethicaloversight