Unraveling a dilemma in healthcare projects:Is it about Quality Improvement or Research?
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
In health sciences, differentiating between a research project and a management or quality project can be confusing, as both employ similar methods such as data collection, statistical analysis, and reporting of results. However, research seeks to generate generalizable knowledge and requires ethical approval, while quality improvement focuses on optimizing internal processes, with no intention of applying the findings outside the local setting. The confusion arises when a management/quality project uses methodologies specific to clinical research, or seeks to be communicated or published. The key lies in the purpose: if it seeks to answer a scientific question applicable beyond the immediate context, it is research; if the objective is to solve an operational problem in an institution, it is improvement. Consulting the institutional review board when in doubt is a good practice to ensure regulatory and ethical compliance.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Bass PF 3rd, Maloy JW. How to determine if a project is human subjects research, a quality improvement project, or both. Ochsner J. 2020;20(1):56-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31486/toj.19.0087
Lynn J. When does quality improvement count as research? Human subject protection and theories of knowledge. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13(1):67-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.13.1.67
Patel DI, Stevens KR, Puga F. Variations in institutional review board approval in the implementation of an improvement research study. Nurs Res Pract. 2013;2013:548591. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. J Am Coll Dent. 2014;81(3):4-13.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). 45 CFR 46: the HHS regulations for the protection of human subjects in research [Internet]. Washington, DC: HHS; 2025 Feb 11 [citado 2025 sept 16]. Disponible en: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), World Health Organization (WHO). International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans [Internet]. Geneva: Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences; 2016 [citado 2025 sept 16]. Disponible en: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK614410/.
Grande Ratti MF, Murature D, Sánchez Del Roscio A, et al. Ética en la investigación cualitativa. Rev Hosp Ital B.Aires. 2024;44(1):e0000295. Grande Ratti MF, Martinez B. Reestructuración de la Central de Emergencias durante la pandemia. Rev Hosp Ital B.Aires 2022;42(1):46-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51987/revhospitalbaires.v42i1.147
Argentina. Provincia de Buenos Aires. Ministerio de Salud. Subsecretaría de Gestión y Contralor del Conocimiento, Redes y Tecnología Sanitarias; Comisión Conjunta de Investigaciones en Salud. Tipo de Investigaciones e Identificación de los riesgos [Internet]. La Plata: el Ministerio; 2016 [citado 2025 sept 16]. Disponible en: https://www.ms.gba.gov.ar/ssps/investigacion/DocTecnicos/TipoInvestigaciones-Identificacionriesgos.pdf.
Argentina. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Guía para la categorización de riesgo en investigaciones en salud [Internet]. Buenos Aires: Ministerio de Salud, GCBA; 2019 [citado 2025 sept 16]. Disponible en: https://static.buenosaires.gob.ar/sites/default/files/media/document/2019/07/05/c47badfec486e91b95939e06715f5246ac6665e8.pdf.
Argentina. Ministerio de Salud. Resolución 1480/2011: Guía para investigaciones con seres humanos. Bol Oficial Rep Argent. 2011 sept 9;(32239):14.
Siriwardana A, Smyth B, Jardine M, et al. Waiver of informed consent in clinical research: a summary of contemporary guidelines and a resource for researchers. BMJ Open. 2025;15(3):e091896. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-091896
Soli S, Braslavsky A, Peroni ML, et al. ¿Qué es y para qué sirve un relato de experiencia profesional? Rev Hosp Ital B.Aires. 2025;45(3):e0000845. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51987/Rev.Hosp.Ital.B.Aires.vi.845
Wolzt M, Druml C, Leitner D, et al. Protocols in expedited review: tackling the workload of ethics committees. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35(4):613-615. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-008-1343-x
Eccles MP, Weijer C, Mittman B. Requirements for ethics committee review for studies submitted to Implementation Science. Implement Sci. 2011;6:32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-32
Steinwachs DM, Hughes RG. Health services research: scope and significance. En: Hughes RG, editor. Patient safety and quality: an evidence-based handbook for nurses. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008. Chapter 8.
Hu Z, Wang RS, Qin X, et al. The global research landscape and future trends in healthcare Total Quality Management. Arch Public Health. 2024;82(1):193. Errata en: Arch Public Health. 2024;82(1):215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-024-01448-5
Wade D. Ethics of collecting and using healthcare data. BMJ. 2007;334(7608):1330-1331. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39247.679329.80