1. Regulations of Human Subject
Research
Assessing Risk and Navigating through IRB
Review
Heather Park-May, IRB Administrator
October 12, 2016
2.
3.
4. Agenda:
» Discuss Ethical considerations when doing research,
and the Belmont Report
» Getting started with an idea, question, or identified
knowledge gap.
» Distinguishing Research from QA/QI
» Elements and requirements of a consent form
5. » While the focus of this talk is on the IRB piece of the
research regulatory pie, keep in mind that there are
other things to consider that may apply to your
research project such as:
Budget
Coverage Analysis
Material Transfer Agreement
Contracts…
6. Researchers are Change Agents for the
Healthcare Industry
» Research is the path to innovation and can empower
all caregivers to discover ways to improve the care
we provide in a way that is driven by data.
» Changes made to support our Researchers:
1. Research Workshop Education Program
2. New streamlined MSU/Sparrow Reliance Process
3. Research Merit Review Committee
4. Efforts to centralize research at Sparrow to create a
gateway for Sparrow and MSU researchers currently
underway
8. 1932-1972 Syphilis Study at Tuskegee
1939-1945 Nazi Medical War Crimes
1944-1974 Cold War Human Radiation Experiments
1946- Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial
1947- Nuremberg Code
1948- United Nations adopted Universal Declaration
1953- First US Federal Policy for Protection of Human subjects
1963- Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital Study
1963-1966- Willowbrook Study
1974- Federal Protections for Human Subject
1979- Publication of the Belmont Report
1980- Publication of FDA Regulations
1991- Publication of Common Rule
1996- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
1999- Death of Jesse Gelsinger
2000- The Office of Human Research Protections Split from NIH.
Human Subjects Historical Timeline
9. Tuskegee Syphilis Study
“ Sometimes, with the best of intentions, scientists and public
officials…working for the benefit of us all, forget that people are
people. They concentrate so totally on plans and programs,
experiments, statistics- on abstractions- that people become
objects, symbols on paper, figures in a mathematical formula…”
- Atlanta Constitution, July 27 1972
11. Respect For Persons (1785)
Idea began with Immanuel Kant:
Leading Philosopher of Deontology and the categorical imperative of treating
every rational being as a free rational agent, and as ends in themselves.
Principle:
•Subjects are respected as
Autonomous Beings
•Protection of Subjects with
Limited Autonomy (Minors,
cognitively impaired)
Applications:
•Informed Consent
• Informed
• Competent
• Voluntary
•Subjects’ Assent and Third
Party Consent
12. Beneficence (1789)
Beneficence is a concept in research ethics which states that researchers
should have the welfare of the research participant as a goal of any clinical
trial or other research study.
•The antonym of this term, maleficence, describes a practice which opposes
the welfare of any research participant.
Jeremy Bentham: Philosopher of Utilitarianism and the Principle
of Utility of the Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number
Principle:
•Do No Harm
•Maximize Benefits and
Minimize Possible Harms
Principle:
•Do No Harm
•Maximize Benefits and
Minimize Possible Harms
Applications:
•Favorable Risk/Benefit
Assessment
•Systematic Analysis and
Minimization of Acceptable Risks
of Harm
Applications:
•Favorable Risk/Benefit
Assessment
•Systematic Analysis and
Minimization of Acceptable Risks
of Harm
13. Justice (350 BCE)
Aristotle: Leading philosopher of Aristotelian Philosophy and
of the principle of distributive justice, distributing goods,
rights, burdens, etc, according to what people deserve.
Principle:
•Distribute Burdens and
Benefits Equitably
•Don’t Exploit Vulnerable
Populations
Applications:
•Select Individuals and Classes
of Subjects Equitably
•Link burdens to benefits.
14. The history of unethical research practices
shaped the regulations we follow today.
Refer to the Quality or Research Guidance Form Provided
15. » Step 1. Set up a good research project
» Identify a knowledge gap in your area of interest
» Conduct a literature review. Library!
» Step 2: Determine if your idea/hypothesis will
involve research to test.
» Definition of Research: Research means a systematic investigation, including
research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute
to generalizable knowledge. Activities which meet this definition constitute
research for purposes of this policy, whether or not they are conducted or
supported under a program which is considered research for other purposes. For
example, some demonstration and service programs may include research
activities.
Getting Started:
16. So to be research you must have:
1. Systematic investigation
2. Research development
3. Testing and evaluation
4. Intent of contributing to
generalizable knowledge
17. Your Study Is Research If:
» You are testing a hypothesis
» Your activity is outside of the standard of care
» You are doing a group comparison to test your hypothesis
» Your study seeks to test an intervention which is beyond
current science and experience
Most resident studies take the form of retrospective or
prospective record reviews. If your testing a hypothesis with
the data you are gathering and you intend to develop or
contribute to generalizable knowledge your study is research.
18. QI Study Aim’s
If there is NO intention of using the data for research
purposes and…
»improve a process or delivery of care with established
or accepted quality standards
»to implement change mandated by sparrow clinical
quality improvement program
»to improve performance on a service or program in
the hospital and is part of the normal standard of care
19. MSU Reliance Agreement
» MSU affiliated Investigators conducting research at Sparrow Facilities and/or with
Sparrow Patients or Sparrow data will require the use of the Reliance process. This
means you go through the MSU IRB as the IRB of record.
» Your requirements for the Sparrow IRB are minimal.
» We ask that you submit your reliance application (Simple 3 page application) along
with the completed protocol impact statement to the MSU online submission
system. The MSU IRB and the Sparrow IRB communicate through the MSU IRB
review process.
Keep in mind Sparrow Patients need to receive a Sparrow template Consent
Form, and HIPAA Authorization to Release PHI for Purposes of Research
form. Available on IRBNet and on the Website. www.sparrow.org/irb
» You may begin research when you have approval letters from both IRB’s.
20. When does the Reliance process apply?
» You are an MSU individual and your research:
• Involves any intervention for research purposes with Sparrow
patients as human subjects of the research by performing
invasive or noninvasive procedures.
• Examples of invasive procedures:
• Collecting buccal mucosa cells using a cotton swab
• Administering individual or group counseling or
psychotherapy
• Administering drugs or other treatments
• Surgically implanting medical devices
• Utilizing physical sensors
• Utilizing other measurement procedures
21. When does the Reliance Process Apply
Cont.
• Involves the collection of protected health information about the
Sparrow patients as subjects of the research.
• Any intervention for research purposes with any Sparrow patients as
human subjects by manipulating the environment
Examples: Controlling environmental light, sound, temperature,
presenting sensory stimuli, orchestrating environmental events or
social interactions.
» And others! See HRPP Manual 4-1 for more information about when
MSU review is required
If it is not clear whether your study falls within these descriptions,
contact the Sparrow OHRA, or MSU IRB staff. We are here to help!
23. IRB Submission Requirements
» Complete Initial Application
» Abstract
» Protocol
» Completed Protocol Impact Statement
» Other applicable study documents: Consent form, Investigator’s brochure…
» An Attending Physician to lead the study as PI for resident studies.
» Nursing Research Council approval for nursing studies.
» Curriculum Vitae or Resume of all researchers
All forms and templates are available on the website: sparrow.org/irb,
IRBnet (forms and templates) and on New Innovations
24. Elements of the Consent Form
» Study Title
» Researcher’s information department, and contact info
» Introduction
» Why is this study being done?
» How many people will participate?
» What will happen if I participate?
» How long will I be in the study?
» What are the side effects, or risks to my participation?
» What are the benefits of participating?
25. Elements of the Consent Form
» What choices do I have if I chose not to participate?
» What are the costs to me ?
» What happens if I am injured as a result of participating?
» Termination of the Study
» What are my rights if I participate?
» Will my medical information be kept confidential?
» Who can answer my questions about the study?
26. The research process and
medical terminology is
confusing for most
subjects, which is why
we ask that you limit
your medical jargon, and
spell out all acronyms
used, and write the
document at an 8th
grade
reading level.
28. HIPAA Authorization Documentation and Covered
Entities
Individuals engaged in human subject
research are responsible for complying with
all requirements regarding use or disclosure of
PHI, including those set forth in HIPAA and
implemented by the covered entity(ies).
29. What HIPAA form template should I use?
» MSU: If the PHI will be obtained from a clinic that is part of the MSU covered
entity, use of the template “MSU Health Team Research Authorization Form”
is required.
» If your research requires subjects to sign a consent form and you will be using
Sparrow PHI, you will use the Sparrow HIPAA Authorization Form Template
» If your research only involves a retrospective record review of Sparrow PHI,
and/or it is not practicable to obtain authorization from the patient to use
their PHI for research, you will complete the Sparrow Request for Waiver of
Authorization form.
» If you will need to obtain Sparrow PHI before you are able to meet with your
subject and discuss the study for enrollment purposes, you will complete the
Partial Waiver of Authorization
30. HIPAA Documentation By Study Type
» Research designed in a way where it is not
practicable to obtain signed HIPAA Authorization:
HIPAA Waiver of
Authorization» Research designed in a way where it IS possible to
obtain signed HIPAA Authorization:
HIPAA Authorization to Disclose PHI for Research
» Access to limited PHI such as name and address for
recruitment purposes:
HIPAA Partial Waiver of Authorization
31. * CITI Training
What is it?
»An internet based system that provides and tracks human subjects research (HST)
training required by OHRP to conduct research
Who does it apply to?
»All individuals engaged in research activities. This includes anyone delegated to
collect or analyze data.
How long does it take?
»Everyone works at a different pace, however it can take anywhere from 4-8 hours. It
can be completed in more than one sitting. The program saves your progress. So be
sure to calculate this time into your research project plan
Does it expire?
»Yes. The CITI program training is good for 3 years, so it is important to be aware of
when it expires.
32. How Do I Complete My CITI Training
» Go to www.citiprogram.com
» Register as a new user (or sign in)
» When prompted, select “Sparrow
Health System” under “Participating
Institutions” then continue to Step 2.
» Complete the required fields in steps
2 thru 6
» For Step 7, question 1, select the
learner group that best represents
you. In most cases it will be the
Biomedical Researcher learner
group.
33. Learner Modules
» Biomedical Researcher
» Chose this group if your research does not fall within any of the other
categories below
» Sparrow Clinical Research Institute Researchers
» Chose this group if you are involved in research through the Sparrow Clinical research institute
» Cancer Center Researchers
» Chose this group if you are involved in research through the Sparrow Cancer Center
» Humanitarian Use Device (HUD) Investigators
» Chose this group if you are involved in HUD Studies
» Nursing Research Council Members
» Chose this group if you are a member of the Nursing Research Council
» IRB Members
» IRB Community/Non-Scientific Member
34. Optional Modules
» For researchers working with a sponsor, you may
find that the Sponsor has specific requirements for
HST training modules. In order to comply with
additional sponsor requirements, we have several
optional modules.
» There are modules on hot topics such as stem cell
research and Social Behavioral Methodologies in
Biomedical Research.
» Our newest module is on Clinical Trial Billing
Compliance.
35. Using IRBNet
To begin the registration process, go to www.irbnet.org and click
on the New User Registration link.
Users that are not
registered on IRBNet
may click here to self-
register
If you have forgotten
your password, click
here.
36. New Project Submission
As a Researcher, Research Manager, or Research
Coordinator you should know how to:
Log In to IRBNet
• Access My Projects
• Build Your First Electronic Project Package
• Share with Your Research Team
• Communicate with Your Team
• Sign Your Project Package
• Submit Your Project Package for Review
• Revise Incomplete Submissions
• Access Review Decisions and Board Documentation
37. Continuing Review; Amendments
Continuing Review:
Pay close attention to the expiration date of the study on the approval letter.
Be sure to submit your continuing review application to renew your
study well in advance of the expiration date to avoid a lapse in IRB
approval.
60 day IRBNet e-mail reminder
Exempt studies are not required to be renewed yearly, however it is
Sparrow’s procedure to touch base with researchers of exempt status
studies to see if the study is still ongoing, or if it has been closed.
Amendments:
Any changes to protocol, IRB approved forms, documentation, data
collection procedures or researchers involved need to be submitted to
the IRB through an amendment application.
38. PI Responsibilities
The term Principal Investigator (PI) defined as the individual under whose
immediate direction the research activities (i.e., focus group, survey, and
drug or device trial) occur.
The protection of human research subjects is a shared responsibility between
the PI, the institutional review boards and the sponsor (as applicable). The PI
must acknowledge that regulations governing human subjects’ research are
an additional area of expertise and that the Sparrow OHRA staff are available
to provide guidance as needed.
39. The PI is ultimately responsible for:
» Submitting proposed research for approval by the IRB
» All actions that take place during a clinical study to ensure patient safety at all
times by abiding by and promoting Good Clinical Practices guidelines. The PI may
delegate some tasks and responsibilities but retains ultimate responsibility for the
ethical conduct of the research.
» Training and communicating with research team members.
» Requesting continuing review of the research and ensuring the IRB that the
research is proceeding according to all applicable regulations
» Notifying the IRB of any upcoming audits (Sponsor, FDA, OHRP, etc) and then
providing the IRB with a copy of the audit report. (Notification of routine
monitoring visits not required.)
» Reporting to the IRB any findings and allegations of non-compliance
» Notifying the IRB in writing prior to leaving the institution. (Sparrow, or MSU) with
a plan to either terminate ongoing studies, or designate a new PI.
40. In order to fulfil these responsibilities the PI should:
» Be aware of the resources available :
» Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections, and the Food and Drug
Administration
» Have realistic expectations of research team members and understanding their positions and
time commitments
» Have access to the internet
» Understand and follow institutional policies, SOP’s and guidance concerning human subject
research.
» Understand and follow FDA, DHHS and OHRP rules and regulations for human subject research
» Have access to and read/respond to email
» Obtain informed consent and continuing consent from subjects if applicable.
» Carefully review lab reports and subjects history/physical findings noting any abnormalities
while reviewing in the context of known effects of drug/device under study.
» Delegate Duties of research team in writing
» Complete required HST training (CITI or MSU’s HST training modules)
» Ask questions when needed and encourage other research team members to do the same
41. New Project Submission
As a Researcher, Research Manager, or Research
Coordinator you should know how to:
Log In to IRBNet
• Access My Projects
• Build Your First Electronic Project Package
• Share with Your Research Team
• Communicate with Your Team
• Sign Your Project Package
• Submit Your Project Package for Review
• Revise Incomplete Submissions
• Access Review Decisions and Board Documentation
43. Tips for a Smooth Review
• Assess the feasibility of your protocol
• Literature Review!: Check out the Sparrow Library!
• Is there enough data available
• Do you have a well defined research plan
• Does your study address a valid need
• Do you have appropriate resources and funding
• Obtain appropriate Sparrow departmental approval prior to IRB submission.
• Discuss ALL resources that will be required to follow the protocol
• Be as detailed as possible when responding to questions in the IRB application
• Submit all required documents:
• Read all instructional material provided
MSU Researchers:
• Check the comments in the MSU online review system frequently
• Contact the MSU IRB if you have any questions.
44. More information available on websites
» Sparrow: www.sparrow.org/researchers
» http://www.sparrow.org/?id=2365&sid=1
» http://www.sparrow.org/sparrowlibrary
» MSU: http://hrpp.msu.edu/
» http://hrpp.msu.edu/forms
45. The Sparrow Way
» In order to address the challenges of increasing prevalence of chronic disease
and an aging population, to improve the quality of care and the Patient
experience while also ensuring greater affordability, Sparrow needs to
implement profound changes in how care is provided.
The work of the brilliant minds in this room is how we get there!
» This change starts with the system-wide adoption of the Sparrow Way. In
partnership with our Caregivers and Physicians, the Sparrow Way is a
commitment to ensuring that the Patient care delivered at Sparrow adheres to
Patient-centered, evidence-based best practices.
http://www.sparrow.org/?id=1540&sid=1
Add
The Reliance agreement with MSU (Briefly)
HIPAA considerations for research
CITI Training
Using the IRBNet submission platform
PI Responsibilities
Tips for a Smooth IRB Review
Before I go into the things that went wrong that lead to the invention of the Institutional Review Board for the safety and ethical oversight of research, I would like to share with you a personal story of what happens when research goes right.
15 years ago, my mother in law suffered a widow maker heart attack. As many women do, she presented atypical symptoms. She went through the entire day feeling crummy before deciding to go to the emergency department in the middle of the night. She went into ventricular fibrillation upon arriving in the ED. The amazing team in the ED shocked her heart back into rhythm, and rushed her to the cath lab. After a week in the CICU, she returned home, to make a near full recovery.
Last year, while experiencing sob, Sparrow physicians found an aortic aneurysm that appeared to have had dissected and healed several times. This required an emergency life saving procedure. What was suppose to be a 2 hour long surgery turned into 3, and then 4, and then 5. The clock just kept ticking. As a healthcare professional, you understand all the things that can go wrong, and in many cases, have seen this firsthand. So by the time the family was called into the consultation room, the stress was unbearable. We learned that while the aneurysm was much larger than expected, which required a more invasive procedure, but she was expected to recover well.
She recovered from the procedure, however, the sob remained. She learned that the had end-stage heart failure, and was starting to go into kidney failure because of the stress of 15 years of diuretics puts your kidneys through. She was referred to a cardiologist at U of M to learn about treatment options not available at Sparrow.
The cardiologist at U of M determined that her heart was so fragile, that she may not survive the drive back home after reviewing findings of the cardiac catheterization. She stayed the entire summer of 2015 as an inpatient at U of M hospital.
Our options were:
1. An approximate 1 year life expectancy with the current condition of her heart
2. A clinical trial to receive an investigational left ventricular assist device to increase the pumping power of her heart as a transitional step to a heart transplant.
Nancy was enrolled in the clinical trial, received the surgery, and returned home about 1 month later. Nancy’s activity tolerance slowly began to improve, as well as her kidney function tests. She is now losing weight, and very active with her cardiac rehab program, and well on her way to being placed on the heart transplant list.
Because of the endless dedication to finding newer, better treatment options, Nancy has the most cutting edge device keeping her alive, and helping her reach her weight loss goal to ultimately receive a new human heart. Because of the work researchers around the world, and possibly some of the physicians in this very room, Nancy is alive today to spoil her grandchildren, and watch her own children accomplish great things.
I share this story for 2 reasons:
To inspire you to continue to search for better ways to deliver the best care to your patients, and not stop at the hoops that the IRB may make you jump through, and
To notify you, if Nancy does have to spend time as a Patient here at Sparrow, do not panic when you check her vitals, and find that she has no pulse.
Syphilis Study at Tuskegee:
Nazi Medical War Crimes: Nazi physicians and scientists conducted many experiments on concentration camps prisoners and other undesirables. Experiments include exposure to extreme conditions (high altitude, ice water) deliberate infliction of wounds or disease; chemical warfare; genetic theories; mass sterilization techniques.
Cold War Human Radiation Experiments:
The U.S. Government conducted more than 400 experiments to determine the effects of exposure to ionizing radiation on human health or to calibrate instruments designed to detect radiation. Most studies involved minimal risks and most of those involving greater than minimal risks included appropriate informed consent.
There were, however, cases where human subjects suffered physical injuries as a result of participating in studies that offered no hope of direct benefit from interventions. Many of these interventions were considered controversial at the time, but were presented to participants as standard practice.
Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial:
The physicians who conducted Nazi experiments during WWII were tried separately from other war criminals because of their professional status as physicians and the horrendous and unique nature of their crimes. They were found guilty of “crimes against humanity.”
Nuremberg Code:
During the trial at Nuremberg, the judges codified fundamental ethical principles for the conduct of research. The Nuremberg Code set forth ten conditions to be met before research could be deemed ethically permissible. The Nuremberg Code became the first international standard for the conduct of research and introduced the modern era of protection for human research subjects.
United Nations Adopted Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Inspired by atrocities committed during World War II and states the conviction that human rights needed to be preserved at the international level.
First U.S. Federal Policy for Protection of Human Subjects:
The first U.S. Federal policy for the protection of human subjects was put into place for research conducted at the Clinical Center, NIH. This policy provided a mechanism for prospective review of proposed research by individuals having no direct involvement or intellectual investment in the research. This system is the model for the current IRB system.
1963- Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital Study:
Studies were conducted at the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital in New York to learn about the human immune system’s response to cancer. Live cancer cells were injected into chronically ill and debilitated patients who were told they were receiving a skin test. The investigators were eventually prosecuted and found guilty of fraud, deceit, and unprofessional conduct.
1963-1966- Willowbrook Study:
Studies were carried out at the Willowbrook State School for “mentally defective persons,” to attempt to better understand the transmission of infectious hepatitis and, subsequently, testing the effects of gamma globulin in preventing or ameliorating the disease.
Residents of Willowbrook, all of whom were children, were deliberately infected with hepatitis, by ingesting the stools of infected those who were infected with hepatitis or by receiving injections of more-purified virus preparations. The investigators argued that hepatitis infection was inevitable for this population; however, critics found the consent process to be unethical because coercive tactics were used, as admission into Willowbrook was granted only to those children whose parents gave consent to participate.
1964- Declaration of Helsinki:
The World Medical Association drafted the first international agreement recommending ethical standards for clinical research. Binds physicians to the words “The health of my patient will be my first consideration” and the international code of medical ethics that declares “A physician shall act in the patient’s best interest when providing medical care.
1974- Federal Protections for Human Subject:
After the Syphilis Study at Tuskegee was exposed, the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources held hearings on this study and other alleged health care abuses. The outcomes of these hearings were:
The enactment of the National Research Act of 1974 requiring the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to codify its policy for the protection of human subjects into regulations; and The formation of the National Commission for the Protections of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, which drafted the Belmont Report.
1979- The Belmont Report:
The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research issued Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. This is the cornerstone document of ethical principles and HHS regulations for the protection of research subjects based on respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.
1980- Publication of the FDA regulations:
FDA established regulations for clinical research.
1991- Publication of the Common Rule:
The Federal Policy for the Protections of Human Subjects. Heavily influenced by the Belmont report. The Common Rule outlines the basic provisions for IRBs, informed consent, and Assurances of Compliance.
1999- The Death of Jesse Gelsinger
On September 17, 1999, 18 year-old Jesse Gelsinger became the first subject in a gene transfer clinical trial to die from a reaction to a recombinant viral vector. Jesse suffered from a rare disorder which causes a deficiency of a necessary enzyme. Jesse was excited to turn 18 so he could enroll in a clinical trial to help other people with his rare disorder. After his 18th birthday, Jesse enrolled in a Phase I dose-escalation trial at the University of Pennsylvania. The clinical trial involved the injection of an adenoviral vector containing the gene. Jesse died after receiving the injection from multi-organ system failure as his body rejected the viral vector.
Investigations found that the Principal Investigator was an inventor for the technology used in the trial and held equity in the start-up company to which the technology was licensed. This case brought significant attention to the issue of financial conflicts of interest in research, among many other findings of misconduct.
2000- The Office of Human Research Protections-
The Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP) was elevated to the level of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, replacing the NIH Office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR). The OHRP provides leadership for all 17 Federal agencies that carry out research involving humans under the Common Rule regulations. The Office has regulatory authority for the protection of human subjects in research and policies and procedures for Institutional Review Boards.
Sept 2015: Release of the NPRM proposing major changes to how research is reviewed.
June 2016: NIH published final policy mandating the use of a single IRB for multi-site research.
Kant thought of the world in two classes: ends-in-themselves and mere means to ends.
We can think of these classes of things as ends-in-themselves and mere means-to-ends, respectively. Ends-in-themselves are autonomous beings with their own agendas; failing to recognize their capacity to determine their own actions would be to thwart their freedom and undermine reason itself. When we reflect on alternative courses of action, means-to-ends, things like buildings, rocks, and trees, deserve no special status in our deliberations about what goals we should have and what means we use to achieve them. The class of ends-in-themselves, reasoning agents like ourselves, however, do have a special status in our considerations about what goals we should have and the means we employ to accomplish them. Moral actions, for Kant, are actions where reason leads, rather than follows, and actions where we must take other beings that act according to their own conception of the law into account.
According to Bentham, pleasure and pain govern not only how human beings act but also how human beings ought to act.
The principle of utility or the principle of utilitarianism : I ought do that act which will bring about the greatest happiness (pleasure) for the greatest number of persons (the community).
This principle emphasizes the good of the community, or the common good.
Keep in mind, not every study fits in to an easily categorized box, and there are additional details to consider if your study does not fit nicely in these categories. For example: a nursing survey that asks for “perceptions” Otherwise considered QI until you start asking about the subject’s perception. That takes you into the research realm.
Also keep in mind the potential for your study to evolve and develop over time. Many QI studies can evolve into research over time.