The slippery slope

Differentiating between quality improvement and research

Robin P. Newhouse, Joan C. Pettit, Stephanie Poe, Laura Rocco

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

As hospitals strive to create strong work environments for nurses, many use the core requirements for Magnet designation to enhance and build new programs in research and evidence-based practice into patient care and operational processes. The problem is the use of quality improvement projects in these efforts as evidence of a healthy "research" program. This confusion can lead to 3 major consequences: (1) poorly designed and interpreted studies; (2) lack of consideration of subject rights; and (3) Institutional Review Board or other regulatory sanctions for noncompliance with federal, state, and local law and institutional policies. The purpose of this article is to differentiate between research and quality improvement, explore the potential risks of confusing quality improvement with research, and suggest criteria by which to determine the difference.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)211-219
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Nursing Administration
Volume36
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2006

Fingerprint

Quality Improvement
Research
Organizational Policy
Magnets
Evidence-Based Practice
Research Ethics Committees
Patient Care
Nurses

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Leadership and Management
  • Nursing(all)

Cite this

The slippery slope : Differentiating between quality improvement and research. / Newhouse, Robin P.; Pettit, Joan C.; Poe, Stephanie; Rocco, Laura.

In: Journal of Nursing Administration, Vol. 36, No. 4, 04.2006, p. 211-219.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Newhouse, Robin P. ; Pettit, Joan C. ; Poe, Stephanie ; Rocco, Laura. / The slippery slope : Differentiating between quality improvement and research. In: Journal of Nursing Administration. 2006 ; Vol. 36, No. 4. pp. 211-219.
@article{5055b369e16a4f799e4cb8d50d0f92c4,
title = "The slippery slope: Differentiating between quality improvement and research",
abstract = "As hospitals strive to create strong work environments for nurses, many use the core requirements for Magnet designation to enhance and build new programs in research and evidence-based practice into patient care and operational processes. The problem is the use of quality improvement projects in these efforts as evidence of a healthy {"}research{"} program. This confusion can lead to 3 major consequences: (1) poorly designed and interpreted studies; (2) lack of consideration of subject rights; and (3) Institutional Review Board or other regulatory sanctions for noncompliance with federal, state, and local law and institutional policies. The purpose of this article is to differentiate between research and quality improvement, explore the potential risks of confusing quality improvement with research, and suggest criteria by which to determine the difference.",
author = "Newhouse, {Robin P.} and Pettit, {Joan C.} and Stephanie Poe and Laura Rocco",
year = "2006",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1097/00005110-200604000-00011",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "211--219",
journal = "Journal of Nursing Administration",
issn = "0002-0443",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The slippery slope

T2 - Differentiating between quality improvement and research

AU - Newhouse, Robin P.

AU - Pettit, Joan C.

AU - Poe, Stephanie

AU - Rocco, Laura

PY - 2006/4

Y1 - 2006/4

N2 - As hospitals strive to create strong work environments for nurses, many use the core requirements for Magnet designation to enhance and build new programs in research and evidence-based practice into patient care and operational processes. The problem is the use of quality improvement projects in these efforts as evidence of a healthy "research" program. This confusion can lead to 3 major consequences: (1) poorly designed and interpreted studies; (2) lack of consideration of subject rights; and (3) Institutional Review Board or other regulatory sanctions for noncompliance with federal, state, and local law and institutional policies. The purpose of this article is to differentiate between research and quality improvement, explore the potential risks of confusing quality improvement with research, and suggest criteria by which to determine the difference.

AB - As hospitals strive to create strong work environments for nurses, many use the core requirements for Magnet designation to enhance and build new programs in research and evidence-based practice into patient care and operational processes. The problem is the use of quality improvement projects in these efforts as evidence of a healthy "research" program. This confusion can lead to 3 major consequences: (1) poorly designed and interpreted studies; (2) lack of consideration of subject rights; and (3) Institutional Review Board or other regulatory sanctions for noncompliance with federal, state, and local law and institutional policies. The purpose of this article is to differentiate between research and quality improvement, explore the potential risks of confusing quality improvement with research, and suggest criteria by which to determine the difference.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33646058273&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33646058273&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00005110-200604000-00011

DO - 10.1097/00005110-200604000-00011

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 211

EP - 219

JO - Journal of Nursing Administration

JF - Journal of Nursing Administration

SN - 0002-0443

IS - 4

ER -