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.
authors.affiliation: Nursing Administration, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA. rnewhou1@jhmi.edu
authors.forename: Robin P
authors.initials: RP
authors.lastname: Newhouse
authors.forename: Joan C
authors.initials: JC
authors.lastname: Pettit
authors.forename: Stephanie
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Poe
authors.forename: Laura
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Rocco
mesh_terms: D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D006801:Humans; D015399:Nursing Research; D017712:Peer Review, Research; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care; D012107:Research Design; D035842:Research Subjects; D012306:Risk; D009626:Terminology as Topic; D014481:United States