Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine >> Research >> Centers >> Perioperative & Pain initiatives in Quality Safety Outcome (PPiQSO)

Policies & Procedures

1. Scope

This document covers the policies and procedures concerning PPiQSO’s Technology Projects Review Committee (herein after referred to as the committee) handling of requests for technology projects. It describes the intake, review & approval process, as well as the evaluation criteria.

[to top]

2. Technology projects and requests

Technology projects involve either the development of software applications or programs or modification of existing technology platforms used at UW Medicine hospitals. The existing technology platforms include Anesthesia Information Management System, Smart Anesthesia Manager decision support module, Checklist navigator module, Paging system etc. Newly proposed technology projects may or may not utilize electronic medical record data. These policies and procedures apply to the following types of requests:
  • - Research:
    • Review by 2 members of the committee. Ad-hoc members may be suggested by the subcommittee for review based on the project.
  • - Quality improvement:
    • Use of technology to improve quality of patient care or patient safety.
  • - Administrative/compliance:
    • Use of technology to meet administrative or compliance requirements
  • - Proof of concept:
    • Development of small scale technology to test a proof of concept in preparation for a larger research or quality improvement initiative.

[to top]

3. Project review and approval considerations

All requests falling within the scope of the technology projects will undergo committee review. The review will focus on technical feasibility including data dependency and availability, any pertinent regulatory requirements, scientific merit if a research initiative, and availability of resources.  Approved projects will proceed to the next stages of software development or changes, testing and validation.

[to top]

4. Prioritization considerations

Higher priority will be given to projects that have funding, those that are in alignment with the quality/safety missions of the department and hospital, and those that seek extramural funding.

[to top]

5. Glossary of terms

AIMS — Anesthesia Information Management System
EMR – Electronic Medical Record
SAM — Smart Anesthesia Manager decision support software

[to top]

6. Project requests

All project requests will complete a project description using the provided template.
All project requests will be submitted through the on-line data request intake form. Research requests must also complete the Research Study Protocols describing the study question, its background and significance, the hypotheses and specific aims, how the proposed technology will be used and an analysis plan. 

All requests will be evaluated by the committee to ascertain completion of request elements before proceeding through the review process.  Once the request has been evaluated as complete, it will follow the review pathway appropriate to its classification.  Pathways for review will differ based on the type of request:

  • Research:
    • Review by 2 members of the committee. Ad-hoc members may be suggested by the subcommittee for review based on the project.
  • Quality improvement:
    • Review by 2 members of the committee, including at least one ad-hoc member from the hospital(s) in which the project will be performed (e.g. UWMC, HMC) and by the department chair if the technology impacts multiple hospitals
  • Administrative/compliance:
    • Review by 2 members of the committee with input from hospital chiefs/compliance officer and department chair as is needed
  • Proof of concept:
    • Review by 2 members of the committee

Any proposals that include committee members on the project team cannot be reviewed by those committee members.

[to top]

7. Proposal evaluation criteria

Proposals that address administrative and compliance needs will be evaluated based on input from pertinent administrative personnel (hospital chiefs, compliance officer or department chair).

For Research, QI and Proof of Concept requests, the review will focus on merit or impact, technical feasibility, meeting regulatory needs, and availability of resources. Evaluation criteria will differ by type of request, taking into account the expected product from each type of project.  All projects will use the same evaluation rubric:

Please score each category 0-4 (0=poor, 4=outstanding; NA if not able to assess)

rate 0-4
1. Significance: The proposed technology addresses an important problem.
2. Background: The literature review and assessment of existing technology is critical and current. There is a technology gap in addressing the clinical or operational problem
3. Aims & Hypotheses (only for research): The proposed aims and hypotheses are reasonable and well-defined.
4. Feasibility & Approach: The proposed technology solution is feasible within the available resources and has the potential to solve the underlying clinical or operational problem. If a research study, the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses are adequately developed and appropriate to the aims of the project. The experimental approach is appropriate and adequate.
5. Innovation: The technology is innovative, and the project challenges existing paradigms or develops new approaches.
6. Scope: The proposed research is appropriate for the proposed time period with the available resources.
7. Output: Anticipated results are likely to result in publication funding from extramural research programs (for research requests) or improve quality of care/patient safety/perioperative operations (QI requests).
  1. Accept
  2. Accept with minor/major revision (provide comments)
  3. Revise and resubmit (provide comments)
  4. Reject (reason)

Project approval is contingent on an acceptable evaluation by at least two committee members.  Project requests that impact multiple hospitals will require departmental chair approval after evaluation.

  • Research:
    • Review will focus on scientific merit, including potential for publication of project results.  Scientific merit criteria include the clinical importance and/or potential impact of the questions the project is designed to address, appropriateness and feasibility of achieving the stated specific aims, appropriateness or quality of hypotheses, methodology including planned statistical analysis of data.  Committee members may take into consideration the experience and qualifications of the project team in their evaluation of the feasibility and likelihood of project success.  Research projects are expected to result in publication and/or grant funding.
  • Quality improvement (QI):
    • Review will focus on importance of the quality problem and the potential for the proposed technology to solve the problem.  If an intervention is planned, the review will also consider the appropriateness and feasibility of the intervention, and the plan to evaluate its effectiveness (including sample size).  Institutional support for any intervention, including support for ongoing QI activity related to the project, may also be considered.  Any potential conflict or synergy with other ongoing research or quality improvement projects should also be considered in the evaluation of feasibility and impact.
  • Proof of concept:
    • Proof of concept projects will follow similar criteria as QI requests, with focus on likelihood of a successful translation into a full scale research or QI project.

[to top]

8. PPiQSO Technology Subcommittee


  • Bowdle, T. Andrew, MD, PhD Professor & Director (CT Anesth Simulation), UWMC
    Regular Faculty
    photo of faculty member

    T. Andrew Bowdle, MD, PhD

    Professor & Director of Cardiothoracic Anesthesiology Simulation,
    Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine;
    Adjunct Professor, Pharmaceutics

    Primary Location: UW Medical Center

    Clinical Interests: Cardiothoracic anesthesiology, echocardiography, physiologic monitoring.

    Research Interests: Clinical pharmacology, patient safety and outcomes.

    Personal Interests: Skiing, photography and cycling.

  • Regular Faculty
    photo of faculty member

    Karen B. Domino, MD, MPH

    Professor &
    Vice Chair for Clinical Research
    Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine
    Adjunct Professor, Neurological Surgery

    Primary Location: UW Medical Center

    Clinical Interests: Pulmonary physiology, quality assurance, neuroanesthesia, trauma anesthesia.

    Personal Interests: Parenting, hiking, camping, cooking, gardening.

  • Members:

  • Jelacic, Srdjan, MD Assistant Professor, UWMC
    Regular Faculty
    photo of faculty member

    Srdjan Jelacic, MD

    Assistant Professor,
    Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine

    Primary Location: UW Medical Center

  • Slade, Ian, MD Acting Assistant Professor, HMC
    Regular Faculty
    photo of faculty fellow

    Ian Slade, MD

    Acting Assistant Professor
    Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine

    Primary Location: Harborview Medical Center

  • Bala G. Nair, PhD Research Associate Professor, UWMC
    Regular Faculty
    photo of faculty member

    Bala G. Nair, PhD

    Research Associate Professor,
    Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine

    Primary Location: UW Medical Center

    Professional Interests: Bioengineering and IT research in critical care, anesthesia information and decision support systems, closed-loop glucose control, biological modeling and signal processing.

  • Wil Van Cleve, MD, MPH (Ad hoc) Assistant Professor, UWMC
    Regular Faculty
    photo of faculty member

    Wil Van Cleve, MD, MPH

    Assistant Professor; Associate Program Director & Director of Curriculum, UWMC,
    Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine

    Primary Location: UW Medical Center

[to top]

9. PPiQSO Technology Request and Delivery Process Diagram

PPiQSO Technology Request and Delivery Process Diagram

[to top]

10. Project follow-up

The principal investigator for any approved research, QI and proof of concept project will be required to submit regular PPiQSO project reports at intervals determined by the committee. 

[to top]