Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
  • About Us
    • About the Ochsner Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • Ochsner Journal Blog

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Ochsner Journal
  • Other Publications
    • Ochsner Journal Blog
  • My alerts
  • Log in
Ochsner Journal

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
  • About Us
    • About the Ochsner Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
Review ArticleREVIEWS AND CONTEMPORARY UPDATES
Open Access

How to Determine if a Project Is Human Subjects Research, a Quality Improvement Project, or Both

Pat F. Bass and John W. Maloy
Ochsner Journal March 2020, 20 (1) 56-61; DOI: https://doi.org/10.31486/toj.19.0087
Pat F. Bass III
1Office of Research, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport, Shreveport, LA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: pbassi@lsuhsc.edu
John W. Maloy
2Assistant Vice Chancellor for Research Management, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport, Shreveport, LA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table.

    Comparison of Human Subjects Research and Quality Improvement Projects4–7

    Study Design ElementHuman Subjects Research ProjectQuality Improvement Project
    PurposeGather facts to test a hypothesis and develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.Improve and understand specific, local processes or practices commonly related to cost, productivity, operations, quality, or patient experience.
    Starting pointAnswer a question or test a hypothesis that can be applied to a more general population.Improve performance in a specific unit or population (patient or provider) in an organization.
    DesignSystematic design with strict adherence to a protocol that does not change throughout the process. May involve randomization.Iterative and adaptive design that may or may not be systematic. Usually does not involve randomization.
    BeneficiariesClinician, researcher, scientific community, and occasionally the subject benefit. Results do not directly benefit institutional practice or programs.Patients, staff, providers, and institution benefit.
    MandateInstitutions do not mandate research activities or programs.Activities are usually mandated by institutions or clinics as part of clinical operations.
    ImpactDesigned to contribute to generalizable knowledge and may or may not benefit subjects.Findings are expected to directly impact institutional processes or practices.
    MeasuresMeasurement instruments must have estimates of reliability, validity, specificity, and sensitivity. Instruments are often complex and have a significant time burden. Protocols are followed closely, and confounding variables are measured or controlled for. Studies may occur over long periods of time (years).Measurement instruments are generally limited, simple, easy to administer, and not overburdensome to the provision of care. Iterative, rapid cycles are followed, and confounding variables are acknowledged but not measured. Timeline is commonly weeks to months.
    Adoption of resultsLittle urgency to disseminate results quickly.Results rapidly adopted into local care delivery.
    ParticipantsSubset of a population without an obligation to participate. Participants must meet strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Investigator will calculate a sample size to determine how many participants are needed.Most or all of the population involved in the process or practice. The responsibility to participate is a component of care, and the expectation is that most individuals participate.
    BenefitsParticipants may or may not benefit directly.Direct benefit to system, program, or process is expected although participants may not receive direct benefit.
    RisksSubjects may be placed at risk, and risks are stated in the informed consent document.By design, does not increase patients’ risk, with the exception of possible privacy/confidentiality concerns. Consent is implied as part of care.
    AnalysisAn a priori hypothesis is developed by the researcher to be statistically proved or disproved.A program, process, or system is compared to an established set of standards, outcomes, or targets.
    OutcomeAnswer a research question and statistically prove or disprove a hypothesis. Significant scientific rigor is applied.Promptly improve a program/process/system after comparison with an established set of standards. Process validity is sought.
    Dissemination of resultsIntent to disseminate assumed at the outset of the project with results expected to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge by filling a gap in the scientific literature.Intent to disseminate is not assumed at the outset of the project and often does not occur beyond the institution; when results are published, the intent is to suggest potentially effective models and strategies rather than generalizable knowledge.
    Use of placeboUse of placebo may be planned.Comparison of standard treatments, practices, techniques, or processes. Placebo is not used.
    Deviation from standard practiceMay involve significant deviation from standard practice.Unlikely to involve significant deviation from standard practice.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Ochsner Journal: 20 (1)
Ochsner Journal
Vol. 20, Issue 1
Mar 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Ochsner Journal.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
How to Determine if a Project Is Human Subjects Research, a Quality Improvement Project, or Both
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Ochsner Journal
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Ochsner Journal web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
How to Determine if a Project Is Human Subjects Research, a Quality Improvement Project, or Both
Pat F. Bass, John W. Maloy
Ochsner Journal Mar 2020, 20 (1) 56-61; DOI: 10.31486/toj.19.0087

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
How to Determine if a Project Is Human Subjects Research, a Quality Improvement Project, or Both
Pat F. Bass, John W. Maloy
Ochsner Journal Mar 2020, 20 (1) 56-61; DOI: 10.31486/toj.19.0087
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH DEFINED
    • QUALITY IMPROVEMENT DEFINED
    • DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
    • PROJECTS THAT ARE BOTH QUALITY IMPROVEMENT AND HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH
    • PROJECTS THAT BEGIN AS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT BUT BECOME HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH
    • QUESTIONS TO HELP WITH THE DECISION
    • CONCLUSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • COVID-19 Physician Burnout: Louisiana's Workforce Vulnerability and Strategies for Mitigation
  • Brief History of Opioids in Perioperative and Periprocedural Medicine to Inform the Future
  • A Framework for the Virtual Medical Interview Process: Considerations for the Applicant and the Interviewer
Show more REVIEWS AND CONTEMPORARY UPDATES

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • quality improvement
  • quality of healthcare
  • research subjects

Current Post at the Blog

American Association for the Advancement of Science Surveys Scientists About Article Publishing Charges—And Uncovers More Problems

Our Content

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Featured Contributors
  • Ochsner Journal Blog
  • Archive at PubMed Central

Information & Forms

  • Instructions for Authors
  • Instructions for Reviewers
  • Submission Checklist
  • FAQ
  • License for Publishing-Author Attestation
  • Patient Consent Form
  • Submit a Manuscript

Services & Contacts

  • Permissions
  • Sign up for our electronic table of contents
  • Feedback Form
  • Contact Us

About Us

  • Editorial Board
  • About the Ochsner Journal
  • Ochsner Health
  • University of Queensland-Ochsner Clinical School
  • Alliance of Independent Academic Medical Centers

© 2023 Ochsner Clinic Foundation

Powered by HighWire