This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related articles  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Quality of Care, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In reply

Dr Stimler argues that "There is virtually never any need for [IRB] oversight for a true, well-formulated QI project." Dr Groman and I agree and are trying to identify those situations in which there is a need for such oversight. The difficulty is that some projects that are called QI do not fit his definition and are significantly different from the examples he cites.^1-2 Furthermore, even Dr Stimler's definition would include some ethically problematic projects, for example, attempts to implement practice standards that are not evidence-based but instead are based on "widely accepted" utilization review targets. Moreover, there are incentives to characterize a project as QI rather than research to avoid IRB review in many institutions. Our article suggests how to identify those projects that are called QI but should have independent oversight and perhaps patient consent.² We are skeptical of a categorical approach that treats all projects . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Bernard Lo, MD
San Francisco, Calif

RELATED ARTICLES

Quality Improvement Projects: Inaction Presents the Greatest Risk
Charles Stimler
Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(21):2648-2649.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Oversight of Quality Improvement: Focusing on Benefits and Risks
Bernard Lo and Michelle Groman
Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(12):1481-1486.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT