ArticleLearning health systems2025
From ethical guidance to practice: Oversight of quality improvement activities at Denver Health, a learning health system.
Article in Learning health systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Available guidance for ethical challenges in learning health systems: an integrative literature review.Health research policy and systems · 2026Review
- From ethical guidance to practice: Oversight of quality improvement activities at Denver Health, a learning health system.Learning health systems · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: A learning health system (LHS) strives to improve clinical practice and outcomes through applied research and quality improvement (QI). However, distinguishing between research and QI has been a persistent challenge. While research involving human subjects is highly regulated, QI remains largely unregulated, lacking in comparable oversight. With confusion and uncertainty surrounding this distinction and little practical guidance for QI activities, Denver Health's LHS developed a model of practice for reviewing QI projects. Methods: In 2018, Denver Health, an integrated academic safety-net delivery system, established the Quality Improvement Review Committee (QuIRC) as a practical approach for distinguishing between QI and human subjects research. We describe the institutional structure and processes, from identifying the problem to establishing the committee and charter, to obtaining institution support, and finally implementation and improvement, ensuring transparency and protections of disseminated QI work. Results: Over 7 years, the QuIRC has reviewed 379 submissions, with 78% approved as QI (non-human subjects research), 8% referred to the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board, and 13% requiring clarification or being withdrawn. A standardized review process, clear charter, broad organizational representation, executive sponsorship, and IRB collaboration enhanced transparency and engagement. The QuIRC has facilitated QI dissemination, supporting the LHS framework and increasing recognition of the impact of QI on clinical care and patient outcomes. Conclusions: The QuIRC framework has improved clarity and oversight of QI activities at Denver Health. These practical approaches can be adapted by other health care systems, contributing to broader efforts to establish national guidance for QI oversight.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.