Applied Nursing Research
Volume 16, Issue 1 , Pages 2-8, February 2003

Differentiating quality improvement from research☆

Anita C. Reinhardt, MSN, RN, Doctoral Student, School of Nursing at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Leslie N. Ray, PhD, RN, Assistant Professor, School of Nursing, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR

Article Outline

Abstract 

Monitoring of quality of care has always been an important part of health care. Self-regulation and external standards require care providers to furnish safe environments for the patient. Similarities in methods used by quality improvement (QI) projects and clinical research have created some confusion in differentiating the two practices. This article reviews the current literature and differences between QI and research. In addition, the article identifies and discusses four criteria: intervention, risk, audience, and data source, which allow investigators to differentiate between the two practices and follow the appropriate procedures for project review. Copyright 2003, Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

No full text is available. To read the body of this article, please view the PDF online.

 

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Quality assurance. Nursing Standard. 1998;13:41; [Reports]
  2. Beyea SC, Nicoll LH. Is it research or quality improvement?. AORN Journal. 1998;68:117–119
  3. Carey R, Lloyd R. Measuring quality improvement in health. New York, NY: Quality Resources; 1995;
  4. Casarett D, Karlawish JHT, Sugarman J. Determining when quality improvement initiatives should be considered research; Proposed criteria and potential implications. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2000;283:2275–2280
  5. Cole FL, Mackey T, Lindenberg J. Search and research; Quality improvement: Psychometric evaluation of patient satisfaction with nurse practitioner care instrument. Journal of American Academy of Nurse Practitioners. 1999;11:471–475
  6. Davies AR, Doyle MAT, Lansky D, Rutt W, Stevic MO, Doyle JB. Outcomes assessment in clinical settings: A consensus statement on principles and best practices in project management. Joint Commission Journal of Quality Improvement. 1994;20:6–16
  7. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2000;
  8. Department of Health, E. a. W . Code of federal regulations: Title 45: Public welfare; Protection of human subjects. In: 1994;p. 46.101–46409 Title 45; Part 46 (45 CFR 46)
  9. Fairfield G, Hunter DJ, Mechanic D, Rosleff F. Implications of managed care for health systems, clinicians, and patients. British Medical Journal. 1997;314:1895–1898
  10. Floyd AMD. An NICU infant stress reduction QI team: applying research findings to clinical care. Joint Commission Journal of Quality Improvement. 1997;23:93–101
  11. Gustafson DH, Hundt AS. Findings of innovation research applied to quality management principles for health care. Health Care Management Review. 1995;20:16–33
  12. Harmon JC, Roche JM. Development of a research-based protocol to rule out tuberculosis by means of continuous quality improvement techniques. American Journal of Infection Control. 1995;23:329–336
  13. Harris MR. Code of ethics and scientific integrity: What relevance to outcome activities?. Advanced Practice Nursing Quarterly. 1997;3:36–43
  14. Koschnitzke L, McCracken SC, Pranulis MF. Issues in clinical nursing research: Ethical considerations for quality assurance versus scientific research. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 1992;14:392–396
  15. Lee L, Anderson V, Piringer P, Boone J, Henderson DK. An epidemiologic approach to quality improvement, quality assurance, and clinical research. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. 1992;13:545–552
  16. Lipsey MW. Design Sensitivity: Statistical Power for Experimental Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1990;
  17. Martin PA. Is it research?. Applied Nursing Research. 1995;8:199–201
  18. McNelly JA. Taking the mystery out of research; Comparative analysis of research, quality improvement, and quality assurance. Orthopaedic Nursing. 1997;16:68
  19. Mertens DM. Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1998;
  20. Mitchell PH, Ferketich S, Jennings BM, American Academy of Nursing Expert Panel on Quality Health Care . Quality health outcomes model. Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 1998;30:43–46
  21. Norman GR, Streiner DL. Biostatistics: The bare essentials. 2nd ed. Hamilton, Ontario: B. C. Decker, Inc; 2000;
  22. Norwood SL. Research Strategies for Advanced Practice Nurses. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Health; 2000;
  23. Omery A, Kaspar CE, Page GG. In Search of Nursing Science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1995;
  24. Patton MD. Action research and the process of continual quality improvement in a cancer center. Oncology Nursing Forum. 1993;20:751–755
  25. Plsek PE. Quality improvement methods in clinical medicine. Pediatrics. 1999;103:203–214
  26. Polit DF, Hungler BP. Nursing Research: Principles and Methods. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott; 1995;
  27. Pritham CH. Quality improvement process/outcome research. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development. 1996;3:vii–viii
  28. Saunders MJ. Director of quality improvement research. Journal of Nursing Care Quality. 1993;7:39–43
  29. Solberg LI, Mosser G, McDonald S. The three faces of performance measurement: improvement, accountability, and research. Joint Commission Journal of Quality Improvement. 1997;23:135–147
  30. Thurston NE, Watson LA, Reimer MA. Research or quality improvement. Journal of Nursing Administration. 1993;23:46–49

☆ Address reprint requests to Anita C. Reinhardt, MSN, RN, 8044 Ellison Loop NW, Olympia, WA 98502.

PII: S0897-1897(02)10903-7

doi:10.1053/apnr.2003.59000

Applied Nursing Research
Volume 16, Issue 1 , Pages 2-8, February 2003

Article Tools