Worldwide, early intervention services for young people with recent-onset psychosis have been associated with improvements in outcomes, including reductions in hospitalization, symptoms, and improvements in treatment engagement and work/school participation. States have received federal mental health block grant funding to implement team-based, multi-element, evidence-based early intervention services, now called coordinated specialty care (CSC) in the USA. New York State’s CSC program, OnTrackNY, has grown into a 23-site, statewide network, serving over 1800 individuals since its 2013 inception. A state-supported intermediary organization, OnTrackCentral, has overseen the growth of OnTrackNY. OnTrackNY has been committed to quality improvement since its inception. In 2019, OnTrackNY was awarded a regional hub within the National Institute of Mental Health-sponsored Early Psychosis Intervention Network (EPINET). The participation in the national EPINET initiative reframes and expands OnTrackNY’s quality improvement activities. The national EPINET initiative aims to develop a learning healthcare system (LHS); OnTrackNY’s participation will facilitate the development of infrastructure, including a systematic approach to facilitating stakeholder input and enhancing the data and informatics infrastructure to promote quality improvement. Additionally, this infrastructure will support practice-based research to improve care. The investment of the EPINET network to build regional and national LHSs will accelerate innovations to improve quality of care.

It is commonplace to observe that science often outstrips the ability of society to monitor, supervise and regulate it. A recent challenge in this regard concerns Learning Healthcare Systems, an initiative to collect data and test hypotheses across clinical settings, and therefore to a larger degree than before. Some argue that the line between research and clinical practice is becoming blurred, and that existing regulation seems to obstruct low risk research. They propose the creation of a new ethical framework for Learning Healthcare Systems, to speed up research. This paper opposes that view, and argues that Learning Healthcare Systems do not blur or remove the line between research and practice, and will not result in a single set of regulations for all kinds of biomedical research. The authors suggest that a large proportion of Learning Healthcare System activities resemble public health surveillance to a significant extent. Therefore, they propose that these activities should be organized in accordance with the same ethical principles as public health surveillance, specifically that Learning Healthcare Systems should rest on the principles of comprehensiveness, transparency, and public accountability.