You Are Here:
This information is for reference purposes only. It was current when produced and may now be outdated. Archive material is no longer maintained, and some links may not work. Persons with disabilities having difficulty accessing this information should contact us at: https://info.ahrq.gov. Let us know the nature of the problem, the Web address of what you want, and your contact information.
Please go to www.ahrq.gov for current information.
Technical Assistance Workshop
Regarding RFA: HS-01-005, published March 26, 2001 in the NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts
Letter of Intent Receipt Date: April 20, 2001
Many questions were posed at the technical assistance meeting held April 16, 2001, regarding RFA HS-01-005, "The Effect of Health Care Working Conditions on Quality of Care." These questions and the ensuing answers follow.
Question: When will the amendment (changing the institutional review board [IRB] approval requirement for this request for applications [RFA]) be published in the NIH Guide?
Question: Can you focus on a single site (for example, home care) or do you need to include it as a set of sites?
Question: Does Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) plan to limit the number of awards by setting?
Question: Would a study that developed an instrument to identify working conditions risk factors be responsive to the RFA or would an applied study with the instrument be required?
Question: Are you using the PHS-398 application?
Question: If you were doing a study with the primary outcome measures related to patient safety, could you also examine other quality measures as secondary outcomes?
Question: Could you do a comparative study on the quality of a military hospital versus the quality in a civilian hospital?
Question: We represent regulators and we have a unique relationship with working conditions because we do not have authority over a setting, just the health professional, though regulators are held accountable for the individual when errors are made. States are struggling to find a way to make sure practitioners are competent before errors happen—and spend a whole lot of money on continuing education (CE). We've got initial studies that show that it is really the work experience that makes the biggest difference. And we also know that discipline cases tend to be in the first 5 years of practice. We want to examine the effect of CE and mentoring on patient safety? Does that seem to fit this RFA?
Question: Does quality have to be measured by safety measures?
Question: Do we agree on the definition for quality?
Question: Would a descriptive study that described quality measures be responsive?
Question: Does the principal investigator have to have a PhD?
Select to access a presentation by Dr. Helen Burstin, Director of the Center for Primary Care Research, AHRQ:
Current as of April 2001
The information on this page is archived and provided for reference purposes only.