Randomized Quality Improvement Trials: An Overview and Proposed Framework for Ethical Oversight.

IF 17.2 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Annals of Internal Medicine Pub Date : 2026-10-01 Epub Date: 2026-08-18 DOI:10.7326/ANNALS-26-00221
Mark J Pletcher, Bernard Lo, Deborah Grady
{"title":"Randomized Quality Improvement Trials: An Overview and Proposed Framework for Ethical Oversight.","authors":"Mark J Pletcher, Bernard Lo, Deborah Grady","doi":"10.7326/ANNALS-26-00221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Quality improvement (QI) is a routine part of health care delivery, but ineffective QI can have unintended consequences, waste resources, and paradoxically worsen health care quality. Randomized QI (RQI) trials use randomization to assign the QI intervention to some but not all patients or clinicians. An RQI trial can provide strong evidence to health care leaders making decisions about whether to scale up, modify, or abandon a QI intervention, but such trials are infrequently used due primarily to a lack of clarity about how regulations and ethical principles apply to these studies. We propose a definition for RQI trials and a streamlined, fit-for-purpose approach to ethical oversight that is consistent with federal regulations. Conducting RQI trials requires careful ethical justification as informed consent is generally impracticable. For this reason, we argue that ethical oversight is needed, even if the project does not qualify as research, and that regular monitoring should be conducted to help decide when the trial should end. Installing technical systems and processes for internal registration, point-of-care randomization, and standardized statistical analyses will help health systems use RQI trials routinely to learn what works to improve the quality of care they deliver for patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":7932,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1444-1452"},"PeriodicalIF":17.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-26-00221","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Quality improvement (QI) is a routine part of health care delivery, but ineffective QI can have unintended consequences, waste resources, and paradoxically worsen health care quality. Randomized QI (RQI) trials use randomization to assign the QI intervention to some but not all patients or clinicians. An RQI trial can provide strong evidence to health care leaders making decisions about whether to scale up, modify, or abandon a QI intervention, but such trials are infrequently used due primarily to a lack of clarity about how regulations and ethical principles apply to these studies. We propose a definition for RQI trials and a streamlined, fit-for-purpose approach to ethical oversight that is consistent with federal regulations. Conducting RQI trials requires careful ethical justification as informed consent is generally impracticable. For this reason, we argue that ethical oversight is needed, even if the project does not qualify as research, and that regular monitoring should be conducted to help decide when the trial should end. Installing technical systems and processes for internal registration, point-of-care randomization, and standardized statistical analyses will help health systems use RQI trials routinely to learn what works to improve the quality of care they deliver for patients.

随机质量改进试验:伦理监督的概述和建议框架。
质量改进(QI)是医疗保健服务的常规部分,但无效的QI可能会产生意想不到的后果,浪费资源,并矛盾地恶化医疗保健质量。随机QI (RQI)试验使用随机化将QI干预分配给一些但不是所有的患者或临床医生。RQI试验可以为卫生保健领导者决定是否扩大、修改或放弃QI干预提供强有力的证据,但由于缺乏法规和伦理原则如何适用于这些研究的明确性,此类试验很少被使用。我们提出了一个RQI试验的定义,以及一个符合联邦法规的精简的、符合目的的伦理监督方法。进行RQI试验需要仔细的伦理论证,因为知情同意通常是不切实际的。出于这个原因,我们认为伦理监督是必要的,即使这个项目不符合研究的资格,并且应该进行定期监督,以帮助决定何时应该结束试验。安装用于内部注册、医疗点随机化和标准化统计分析的技术系统和流程,将有助于卫生系统定期使用RQI试验,以了解哪些方法可以提高为患者提供的护理质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Annals of Internal Medicine
Annals of Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
23.90
自引率
1.80%
发文量
1136
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Established in 1927 by the American College of Physicians (ACP), Annals of Internal Medicine is the premier internal medicine journal. Annals of Internal Medicine’s mission is to promote excellence in medicine, enable physicians and other health care professionals to be well informed members of the medical community and society, advance standards in the conduct and reporting of medical research, and contribute to improving the health of people worldwide. To achieve this mission, the journal publishes a wide variety of original research, review articles, practice guidelines, and commentary relevant to clinical practice, health care delivery, public health, health care policy, medical education, ethics, and research methodology. In addition, the journal publishes personal narratives that convey the feeling and the art of medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书