How to Determine if a Project Is Human Subjects Research, a Quality Improvement Project, or Both

Competency-Based Virtual Clinical Practicum in Response to COVID-19 Pandemic: A Quality Improvement Project

PURPOSE

The purpose of the quality improvement (QI) project was to provide a learner and faculty preceptor high quality virtual clinical practicum (VCP) for Wound, Ostomy, Continence (WOC) Nurse learners during the COVID-19 pandemic and disseminate findings.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

Project participants were registered nurses post-bachelor's degree or higher with a minimum of 1-year clinical experience who had completed and passed the didactic portion of a Wound Ostomy Continence Nursing Education Program (WOCNEP). Learners completing the WOCNEP's VCP and the faculty preceptors were the subjects for this QI report. The setting was a virtual platform allowing live time visibility and interactions between learners and faculty preceptors including the ability to share documents and procedural videos. An initial group of 62 learners were asked open-ended questions after completion of the VCP; the most frequently recurring themes were converted into 5-point Likert scale questions as the evaluation tool completed by an additional 234 learners. In total, 296 learners completing the VCP evaluated this novel 100% simulation virtual practicum.

APPROACH

This QI project evaluated a 100% simulation-based practicum at a WOCENP based in the United States. A competency based VCP used the Competency Outcomes and Performance Assessment (COPA) model. Learners were taught competencies via a preparatory virtual lab and then had to prepare documents and videos or pictures with step-by-step instructions prior to attending a Live Competency Assessment Lab with faculty preceptors and a small group of peer learners.

OUTCOMES

Appraisal of the VCP was based on course evaluations anonymously completed by each of the 296 learners. Faculty preceptors were queried regarding their VCP evaluation and certification exam pass rates were tallied. Findings indicate positive outcomes of the VCP competency-based practicum from student and faculty preceptor perspectives along with higher certification pass rates; specifically, wound care pass rates increased by 16%, ostomy care increased by 18% and continence care pass rates increased by 13%.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Our reported experiences strongly suggest a VCP offers an attractive option for fulfilling practicum requirements while reducing barriers of the in-person split option practicum.

Evolution of Cross-Sectional Survey Protocol Quality Over Time: A Case Series of Index U.S. REMS Knowledge Survey Protocols (2007-2020)

INTRODUCTION

Surveys are commonly used to assess effectiveness of FDA-required risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) for drugs and biologics in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the scientific rigor of REMS knowledge survey protocols submitted to FDA and compare protocols before and after FDA's 2012 public workshop and 2019 draft guidance.

METHOD

A content analysis of index survey protocols submitted to FDA (2007-2020) for single-product REMS with elements to assure safe use (39 programs, 78 protocols) was conducted. Each protocol was scored against 52 core essential elements (CEE), abstracted from FDA's guidance and grouped into six domains: study objective (n = 5), study design (n = 18), survey instrument (n = 9), participant recruitment (n = 7), survey administration (n = 9), and statistical analysis plan (n = 4). Scores were collected by time periods: (A) Oct 2007 to Jul 2012; (B) Aug 2012 to Feb 2019; (C) Mar 2019 to Dec 2020; and compared using logistic generalized linear mixed models adjusting for domain, survey population, vendor, program, and protocol.

RESULTS

There were 30 (38.5%), 40 (51.3%), and 8 (10.3%) protocols submitted in time period A, B, and C, respectively. Adjusted marginal means of elements present (on the probability scale) by time period were 0.5816 (SE = 0.0242), 0.6429 (SE = 0.0229), and 0.7543 (SE = 0.0394). The likelihood of missing a CEE declined over time (adjusted p-value = 0.0094, time period A vs C). The statistical analysis plan domain had the most improvement; study design remained the weakest domain with the scientific justification CEE particularly underrepresented.

CONCLUSION

The rigor of REMS knowledge survey protocols improved over time consistent with FDA's efforts to advance regulatory science, but gaps remain.

Treatment Satisfaction in a Civil Commitment Facility for Sexually Violent Persons

Evaluating patient satisfaction in therapeutic settings is consistent with a Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model. This study provides results from a program improvement initiative in a sexually violent person (SVP) civil commitment facility that queried patients and treatment providers about their satisfaction with therapeutic processes and assessment methods. Overall, patients reported high levels of satisfaction with treatment at the facility, with the highest levels of satisfaction on items about being treated with kindness and respect and staff acting professionally. Providers rated current assessment methods such as the Penile Plethysmography (PPG) assessment, polygraph testing, and neuropsychological testing as most helpful for patients in treatment progress; however, patients rated PPG assessment and polygraph testing as the least helpful of the assessments conducted. Soliciting patient feedback periodically could be important for maintaining treatment engagement and discovering opportunities to enhance patient satisfaction to treatment in a SVP civil commitment setting.

COVID-19 outbreak in a state prison: a case study on the implementation of key public health recommendations for containment and prevention

BACKGROUND

People incarcerated in US prisons have been disproportionately harmed by the COVID-19 pandemic. That prisons are such efficient superspreading environments can be attributed to several known factors: small, communal facilities where people are confined for prolonged periods of time; poor ventilation; a lack of non-punitive areas for quarantine/medical isolation; and staggeringly high numbers of people experiencing incarceration, among others. While health organizations have issued guidance on preventing and mitigating COVID-19 infection in carceral settings, little is known about if, when, and how recommendations have been implemented. We examined factors contributing to containment of one of the first California prison COVID-19 outbreaks and remaining vulnerabilities using an adapted multi-level determinants framework to systematically assess infectious disease risk in carceral settings.

METHODS

Case study employing administrative data; observation; and informal discussions with: people incarcerated at the prison, staff, and county public health officials.

RESULTS

Outbreak mitigation efforts were characterized by pre-planning (e.g., designation of ventilated, single-occupancy quarantine) and a quickly mobilized inter-institutional response that facilitated systematic, voluntary rapid testing. However, several systemic- and institutional-level vulnerabilities were unaddressed hindering efforts and posing significant risk for future outbreaks, including insufficient decarceration, continued inter-facility transfers, incomplete staff cohorting, and incompatibility between built environment features (e.g., dense living conditions) and public health recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our adapted framework facilitates systematically assessing prison-based infectious disease outbreaks and multi-level interventions. We find implementing some recommended public health strategies may have contributed to outbreak containment. However, even with a rapidly mobilized, inter-institutional response, failure to decarcerate created an overreliance on chance conditions. This left the facility vulnerable to future catastrophic outbreaks and may render standard public health strategies - including the introduction of effective vaccines - insufficient to prevent or contain those outbreaks.

Advancing our field by academically advancing pediatric rehabilitation medicine physicians

Academic promotion is desired by many faculty practicing at academic medical institutions, but the criteria for promotion often appear opaque to many physician faculty. In nearly all cases, evidence of scholarship is required regardless of academic track. Academic advancement can be stymied by unclear expectations, lack of protected time to engage in scholarly projects, insufficient evidence of dissemination, and limited guidance, mentorship and sponsorship. In addition to being important for promotion, scholarship is an essential aspect of academic medicine because it helps inform and advance the science. Pursuing academic excellence is an important goal for pediatric rehabilitation medicine faculty members because it helps advance the care of children with disabilities and the field itself. Pediatric rehabilitation medicine faculty in the clinician educator or clinician leader tracks are encouraged to understand the criteria for advancement, seek out mentorship, scholarize their career ikigai and identify opportunities to demonstrate academic excellence.

Research in nursing education and the institutional review board/ethics committee

BACKGROUND

Institutional review board (IRB) or research ethics committee approval is intended to protect the rights of human subjects. Assurance that ethical standards are met is essential for educational research and quality improvement (QI) projects involving human subjects.

PURPOSE

The purposes were to describe the requirements of nursing journals for educational studies and QI projects related to education to be reviewed by an IRB or a research ethics committee and to identify the types of statements of approval or exemption to be included in manuscripts.

METHOD

The investigators employed an electronic survey sent to members of the International Academy of Nursing Editors list serve. Responses representing 64 nursing journals were received.

RESULTS

The majority of journals that publish academic educational studies (n = 32, 86.5%) always required IRB or other ethics committee review, and 17 (45.9%) required the same for QI projects related to education. An IRB or research ethics committee review was always required by journals for educational studies (n = 24, 88.9%) and for QI projects (n = 14, 51.9%) involving the professional development of nurses.

CONCLUSIONS

Educational studies that involve human subjects should be reviewed by an IRB or other type of research ethics committee before implementing the study. Any determination of exemption should be made by the IRB or research ethics committee, not by the investigator.