We live in a world of increasing data access and use, recognising that exacting scientific analysis can spur insight, innovations and quality improvement in healthcare. How do we manage the conundrum that clinical analyses such as comparative effectiveness studies of therapeutics and outcomes studies are called research and must undergo lengthy and burdensome research regulatory processes while "Business Intelligence" solutions need not. Yet arguably the effectiveness and outcomes studies are more likely to produce clinically valid results leading to improvements in care than the plethora of 'operational' reports currently being generated.
in any research study its the "validation" phase that establishes proof of value found in particular work. In such a case, clinical trials are actually something having direct impact on human beings as they are applied on physical bodies.
In case of business intelligence, validation automatically happens in course of implementation and subsequent reports appraisal. Validation comes from fact checking using operational efficiency observed. The business concern wouldn't normally retain an unnecessary overhead in their process.
Finally the research standards and policies that govern them will have structural changes depending on type/context and geographic region.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science
- Research Topics