Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Ethical considerations in quality improvement

Abstract

Clinicians have an ethical responsibility to improve care while safeguarding patients from harm. This ethical imperative drives the implementation of Quality Improvement (QI) initiatives aimed at enhancing patient outcomes. In comparison to human subjects’ research, QI efforts may have different ethical considerations that seem less well defined. This article explores the ethical complexities in neonatal and perinatal QI work associated with designing, conducting, and disseminating QI projects. QI efforts should be grounded in ethical tenets such as beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, and respect for autonomy particularly when applied to vulnerable populations such as neonates. By recognizing the ethical considerations unique to QI, investigators can promote transparency and context-aware practices, thereby improving the rigor, reproducibility, and safety of their initiatives. Thoughtful design and implementation can ensure that QI efforts are both ethically sound and clinically impactful, enhancing their trustworthiness and applicability across diverse clinical settings.

Clinical Trial Registration (if any)

None.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lynn J, Baily MA, Bottrell M, Jennings B, Levine RJ, Davidoff F, et al. The ethics of using quality improvement methods in health care. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146:666–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bion J, Richardson A, Hibbert P, Beer J, Abrusci T, McCutcheon M, et al. ‘Matching Michigan’: a 2-year stepped interventional programme to minimise central venous catheter-blood stream infections in intensive care units in England. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22:110–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Buetti N, Marschall J, Drees M, Fakih MG, Hadaway L, Maragakis LL, et al. Strategies to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infections in acute-care hospitals: 2022 Update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2022;43:553–69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Payne V, Hall M, Prieto J, Johnson M. Care bundles to reduce central line-associated bloodstream infections in the neonatal unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Dis Child-Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2018;103:F422–F9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mobley RE, Bizzarro MJ, editors. Central line-associated bloodstream infections in the NICU: successes and controversies in the quest for zero. Seminars in perinatology; 2017: Elsevier.

  6. Goldman J, Rotteau L, Shojania KG, Baker GR, Rowland P, Christianson MK, et al. Implementation of a central-line bundle: a qualitative study of three clinical units. Implement Sci Commun. 2021;2:105.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Fan E, Laupacis A, Pronovost PJ, Guyatt GH, Needham DM. How to use an article about quality improvement. JAMA 2010;304:2279–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Stiegler MP, Tung A. Is it quality improvement or is it research?: Ethical and regulatory considerations. Anesthesia Analgesia. 2017;125:342–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Expedited Review: Categories of Research that may be Reviewed Through an Expedited Review Procedure (1998) accessed 3/31/2025 at https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/categories-of-research-expedited-review-procedure-1998/index.html.

  10. Varkey B. Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice. Med Princ Pr. 2021;30:17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Emanuel EJ, Crouch RA, Arras JD, Moreno JD Ethical and regulatory aspects of clinical research: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2004.

  12. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF Principles of biomedical ethics: Edicoes Loyola; 1994.

  13. Gautham KS, Pearlman S. Do quality improvement projects require IRB approval? J Perinatol. 2021;41:1209–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Johns Hopkins Medicine. Office of human subjects research -institutional review board guidelines and policies. 2021.

  15. Flaming D, Barrett-Smith L, Brown N, Corcoran J. “ Ethics? But it’s only quality improvement!”. Health Q (Tor, Ont). 2009;12:50–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Miller FG, Emanuel EJ. Quality-improvement research and informed consent. N. Engl J Med. 2008;358:765–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hunt DF, Dunn M, Harrison G, Bailey J. Ethical considerations in quality improvement: key questions and a practical guide. BMJ Open Quality. 2021;10:e001497.

  18. Goldstein PA The ethics of quality improvement studies: do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?: Elsevier; 2021. 821-4.

  19. McNamara P, Mak W, Whyte H. Dedicated neonatal retrieval teams improve delivery room resuscitation of outborn premature infants. J Perinatol. 2005;25:309–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hall S, Lee V, Haase K. Exploring the challenges of ethical conduct in quality improvement projects. Can Oncol Nurs J. 2020;30:64–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule. Accessed 4/8/2025 at https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/laws-regulations/index.html.

  22. Menear M, Blanchette M-A, Demers-Payette O, Roy D. A framework for value-creating learning health systems. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17:1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Resar R, Griffin F, Haraden C, Nolan T. Using care bundles to improve health care quality. IHI innovation series white paper Cambridge. Mass: Inst Health Improvement. 2012;14:15–6.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Blamoun J, Alfakir M, Rella ME, Wojcik JM, Solis RA, Khan MA, et al. Efficacy of an expanded ventilator bundle for the reduction of ventilator-associated pneumonia in the medical intensive care unit. Am J Infect control. 2009;37:172–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, Sinopoli D, Chu H, Cosgrove S, et al. An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N. Engl J Med. 2006;355:2725–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M, Davis D Improving patient care: the implementation of change in health care: John Wiley & Sons; 2013.

  27. Puthoff TD, Veneziano G, Kulaylat AN, Seabrook RB, Diefenbach KA, Ryshen G, et al. Development of a structured regional analgesia program for postoperative pain management. Pediatrics. 2021;147:e20200138.

  28. Ventola CL. The antibiotic resistance crisis: part 1: causes and threats. Pharm Ther. 2015;40:277.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

SP and RB conceptualized and designed the study, participated in literature review, drafted initial manuscript, reviewed and revised the manuscript critically for intellectual content. PM participated in literature review, drafted initial manuscript, reviewed and revised the manuscript critically for intellectual content. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen A. Pearlman.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare. SAP, PDM, and RB each conceptualized the manuscript, wrote portions of the manuscript, and edited the manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pearlman, S.A., Murray, P.D. & Bapat, R. Ethical considerations in quality improvement. J Perinatol (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-025-02403-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-025-02403-0

Search

Quick links