ArticleAdvances in health information science and practice2026
Protecting Against Unintended Risk From Student Quality Improvement Projects in Health Care.
Article in Advances in health information science and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quality improvement (QI) project design is an essential characteristic of degree programs for future health care leaders. The use of evidence-based practices strengthens patient safety and organizational efficiency. The curriculum for advanced degree programs emphasizes and requires a QI project for each student, often allowing the activity to occur at the student's place of employment, thus creating a dual responsibility (student-employee). In the past two decades, institutional review boards (IRBs) and practitioners have struggled with incorporating uniformity in the review of research versus QI design. Despite the efforts of experts in ethics and calls to develop formal processes, consistency issues are still a challenge in traditional IRB review models. The process to mandate the IRB as the sole decision-maker for QI projects may lead to overregulation and bottlenecks in the institutional workflow. In this report, the author attempts to reconcile the causes of overregulation and also draw attention to potentially unrealized risks to patient privacy and protections. The proposed effort aims to (1) proactively establish when governance models are necessary for the population of student-employees conducting QI projects, and (2) promote interaction and cooperation when addressing ethical and regulatory standards outside of the IRB to reduce overregulation for student-employee QI projects. The author also describes a novel heatmap for risk identification and introduces the 5Circle Student Employee Venn for Quality Improvement model as a proposed mechanism to help institutions design more appropriate governance structures for student-employee QI projects. Finally, the author suggests ways by which institutions can increase efficiency and reduce overregulation of QI.
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.