Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T12:14:24.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Learning Health Systems and the Revised Common Rule

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Joshua A. Rolnick
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Quality improvement (QI) is an important function of learning health systems, and public policy should promote QI activities. Use of systematic methodologies in QI has prompted substantial confusion regarding when QI is human subjects research under the Common Rule, and this confusion persists with the revised Rule. Difficulty distinguishing research from QI imposes costs on the quality improvement process. I offer guidance to IRBs to mitigate these costs and suggest a new regulatory exclusion for minimal risk quality improvement activities.

Type
Symposium Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 47 , Issue 2: Human Subject Protection , Summer 2019 , pp. 238 - 246
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Institute of Medicine (US) Roundtable on Evidence-Based Medicine, The Learning Healthcare System: Workshop Summary, Olsen, L. A., Aisner, D., and McGinnis, J. M. eds., (Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US), 2007), at 6.Google Scholar
Chambers, D. A., Glasgow, R. E., and Stange, K. C., “The Dynamic Sustainability Framework: Addressing the Paradox of Sustainment amid Ongoing Change,” Implementation Science 8, no. 1 (2013): 1-11, at 6..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogrinc, G. et al., “An Instrument to Differentiate between Clinical Research and Quality Improvement,” IRB 35, no. 5 (2013): 1–8, at 1.Google Scholar
Baily, M. A. et al., “The Ethics of Using QI Methods to Improve Health Care Quality and Safety,” The Hastings Center Report 36, no. 4 (2006): S1-40; C. E. Goldstein et al., “Accommodating Quality and Service Improvement Research within Existing Ethical Principles,” Trials 19, no. 1 (2018): 334-340; N. Kass et al., “Controversy and Quality Improvement: Lingering Questions about Ethics, Oversight, and Patient Safety Research,” Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety 34, no. 6 (2008): 349–353; K. Fiscella et al., “Ethical Oversight in Quality Improvement and Quality Improvement Research: New Approaches to Promote a Learning Health Care System,” BMC Medical Ethics 16, no. 1 (2015): 63-69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, H. H. and McKinney, R. E., “Opportunities Missed and Created by the New Common Rule,” American Journal of Bio-ethics 17, no. 7 (2017): 36–38, at 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, D. A., Feero, W. G., and Khoury, M. J., “Convergence of Implementation Science, Precision Medicine, and the Learning Health Care System: A New Model for Biomedical Research,” JAMA 315, no. 18 (2016): 1941-1942, 1941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, J. et al., “Adoption of Electronic Health Record Systems among U.S. Non-Federal Acute Care Hospitals: 2008-2015,” available at <https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/briefs/2015_hospital_adoption_db_v17.pdf> (last visited Jan. 12, 2019).+(last+visited+Jan.+12,+2019).>Google Scholar
Murff, H. J. et al., “Automated Identification of Postoperative Complications Within an Electronic Medical Record Using Natural Language Processing,” JAMA 306, no. 8 (2011): 848-855.Google Scholar
Makam, A. N., Nguyen, O. K., and Auerbach, A. D., “Diagnostic Accuracy and Effectiveness of Automated Electronic Sepsis Alert Systems: A Systematic Review,” Journal of Hospital Medicine 10, no. 6 (2015): 396–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowie, M. R. et al., “Electronic Health Records to Facilitate Clinical Research,” Clinical Research in Cardiology 106, no. 1 (2017): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolnick, J. et al., “Ethical Oversight of Quality Improvement and the Research-QI Boundary: A New Common Rule Changes Little,” IRB: Ethics & Human Research 39, no. 3 (2017): 1–10; C. A. Longhurst, R. A. Harrington, and N. H. Shah, “A ‘green Button’ for Using Aggregate Patient Data at the Point of Care,” Health Affairs (Project Hope) 33, no. 7 (2014): 1229–1235, at 1232.Google Scholar
Hirsch, J.A. et al., “PQRS and the MACRA: Value-Based Payments Have Moved from Concept to Reality,” American Journal of Neuroradiology 37, no. 6 (2016): 2195-2200. Inpatient acute care is a partial exception to fee-for-service. Care is bundled under the DRG system. However, even there, hospitals have flexibility to use different DRGS of varying reimbursement and intensity of services.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, D. M., “Rising Medical Costs Mean More Rough Times Ahead,” JAMA 318, no. 6 (2017): 508-509, at 509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“The Impact of Hospital Consolidation on Medical Costs,” NCCI Holdings Inc., available at <https://www.ncci.com/Articles/Pages/II_Insights_QEB_Impact-of-Hospital-Consolidation-on-Medical-Costs.aspx> (last visited Jan. 12, 2019).+(last+visited+Jan.+12,+2019).>Google Scholar
Fleishon, H. B. et al., “Academic Medical Centers and Community Hospitals Integration: Trends and Strategies,” Journal of the American College of Radiology 14, no. 1 (2017): 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, T., Wu, A. W., and Makary, M. A., “The Potential Hazards of Hospital Consolidation: Implications for Quality, Access, and Price,” JAMA 314, no. 13 (2015): 1337-1338.Google Scholar
Hofmeyer, A., Scott, C., and Lagendyk, L., “Researcher-Decision-Maker Partnerships in Health Services Research: Practical Challenges, Guiding Principles,” BMC Health Services Research 12, no. 1 (2012): 280-286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45 C.F.R. 46.114 (2018).Google Scholar
This same definition is used for other federal regulations that affect QI activities, including the definition in Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. 45 CFR 164.501 (2018). The definition of research is unchanged, but the revised CR definition includes a set of activities that are not research. 45 C.F.R. 46.102(l) (2018).Google Scholar
Id. The most important is an exemption for secondary analysis of identifiable health information regulated by the HIPAA privacy rule. 45 C.F.R. 46.104(d)(4)(iii) (2018). This category of exemption does not require a limited IRB review. However, certain requirements, such as informed consent, may still apply under the privacy rule, and involve a similar inquiry into the application of the definition of research.Google Scholar
See Rolnick et al., supra note 11; Pierce, and McKinney, , “Opportunities Missed and Created by the New Common Rule,” 17, no. 7 (2017): 36.38; See Baily et al., supra note 5, at 37.Google ScholarPubMed
Applying the generalizability standard is not a unique problem for QI, but QI is an important example of the problems.Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. 46.102(l) (2018).Google Scholar
Case 1 may involve evaluation of an untested intervention, and therefore not QI. I would dispute that a historical record of testing is what distinguishes QI from research. Many changes to systems practice will be untested, and their contextual nature means that any local system change is, in a sense, untested. Regardless, the point here is to illustrate that generalizability does not by itself lead to ethical harms that would justify independent review.Google Scholar
Quality Improvement Activities FAQs, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections, available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/faq/quality-improvement-activities/index.html> (last visited Jan. 1, 2019). It is unclear how OHRP is distinguishing the quality of care from patient outcomes, or why measurement of patient outcomes rather than other endpoints (e.g. a process measure) should determine whether an evaluation of an untested intervention is research under the Rule.+(last+visited+Jan.+1,+2019).+It+is+unclear+how+OHRP+is+distinguishing+the+quality+of+care+from+patient+outcomes,+or+why+measurement+of+patient+outcomes+rather+than+other+endpoints+(e.g.+a+process+measure)+should+determine+whether+an+evaluation+of+an+untested+intervention+is+research+under+the+Rule.>Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. 46.102(b) (2018).Google Scholar
Whicher, D. et al., “The Views of Quality Improvement Professionals and Comparative Effectiveness Researchers on Ethics, IRBs, and Oversight,” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 10, no. 2 (2015): 132–144, at 138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Common Rule only applies to “all research involving human subjects conducted, supported, or otherwise subject to regulation by any Federal department or agency.” 45 C.F.R. 46.101(a) (2018). However, as a practical matter, funded institutions are likely to apply it to any research activities, regardless of direct funding source.Google Scholar
Infectious Diseases Society of America, “Grinding to a Halt: The Effects of the Increasing Regulatory Burden on Research and Quality Improvement Efforts,” Clinical Infectious Diseases: An Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 49, no. 3 (2009): 328–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For example, see “Quality Improvement Activities in Health Care Versus Research,” Duke University Health System, Human Research Protection Program (April 30, 2013), available at <https://irb.duhs.duke.edu/sites/irb.duhs.duke.edu/files/QI_policy_and_checklist_4-30-2013jw.pdf> (last visited Jan. 1, 2019).+(last+visited+Jan.+1,+2019).>Google Scholar
Snapshot of U.S. Health Systems, 2016, Agency for Health-care Research and Quality, available at <https://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/snapshot-of-us-health-systems-2016v2.pdf> (last visited Jan. 1, 2019).+(last+visited+Jan.+1,+2019).>Google Scholar
It may be useful to have a QI “checkbox” on applications.Google Scholar
See Rolnick, supra note 11, at 7.Google Scholar
Quality Improvement Activities FAQs, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections, available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/faq/quality-improvement-activities/index.html> (last visited Jan. 1, 2019).+(last+visited+Jan.+1,+2019).>Google Scholar
Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 80 Fed. Reg. 53933, 53948 (Sept. 8, 2015).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. 46.102(j) (2018).Google Scholar