Book contents
- Principles of IVF Laboratory Practice
- Principles of IVF Laboratory Practice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- The Evolution of IVF Practice
- Section 1 Starting a New Laboratory and Training Protocols
- Section 2 Pre-procedure Protocols
- Section 3 Gametes
- Section 4 Insemination/ICSI
- Section 5 Fertilization Assessment
- Section 6 Embryo Assessment: Morphology and Beyond
- Section 7 Embryo Cryopreservation
- Section 8 Embryo Transfer
- Section 9 Quality Management
- Index
- References
Section 9 - Quality Management
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2023
Book contents
- Principles of IVF Laboratory Practice
- Principles of IVF Laboratory Practice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- The Evolution of IVF Practice
- Section 1 Starting a New Laboratory and Training Protocols
- Section 2 Pre-procedure Protocols
- Section 3 Gametes
- Section 4 Insemination/ICSI
- Section 5 Fertilization Assessment
- Section 6 Embryo Assessment: Morphology and Beyond
- Section 7 Embryo Cryopreservation
- Section 8 Embryo Transfer
- Section 9 Quality Management
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Principles of IVF Laboratory PracticeLaboratory Set-Up, Training and Daily Operation, pp. 293 - 334Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
References
Chapman, C. W. Witnessing in ART – Has the time come to utilize technology? Col Reprod Biol Newsletter 2019; 8(2).Google Scholar
De los Santos, M. J. and Ruiz, A. Protocols for tracking and witnessing samples and patients in assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 2013; 100:1499–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brison, D. R., Hooper, M., Critchlow, J. D., et al. Reducing risk in the IVF laboratory: implementation of a double witnessing system. Clin Risk 2004; 10:176–80.Google Scholar
Jarman, H., Jacobs, E. and Zielinski, V. Medication study supports registered nurses’ competence for single checking. Int J Nurs Pract 2002; 8:330–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thornhill, A. R., Orriols Brunetti, X. and Bird, S. Measuring human error in the IVF laboratory using an electronic witnessing system, in Proceedings of the 17th World Congress on Controversies in Obstetrics, Gynecology & Infertility (COGI ’13), pp. 101–6 (Lisbon, Portugal: Monduzzi Editoriale, 2013).Google Scholar
Rienzi, L., Bariani, F., Dalla Zorza, M., et al. Failure mode and effects analysis of witnessing protocols for ensuring traceability during IVF. Reprod Biomed Online 2015; 31:516–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toft, B. and Mascie-Taylor, H. Involuntary automaticity: a work-system induced risk to safe health care. Health Serv Manage Res 2005; 18:211–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Armitage, G. Double checking medicines: Defense against error or contributory factor? J Eval Clin Pract 2007; 14:513–19.Google Scholar
Biron, A. D., Loiselle, C. G. and Lavoie-Tremblay, M. Work interruptions and their contribution to medication administration errors: An evidence review. Worldview Evid Nurs 2009; 6(2):70–86.Google Scholar
Novo, S., Nogues, C., Penon, O., et al. Barcode tagging of human oocytes and embryos to prevent mix-ups in assisted reproduction technologies Hum Reprod 2014; 29(1):18–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
References
CLIA Law and Regulations, available at www.n.cdc.gov/clia/Regulatory/ (accessed October 2015).Google Scholar
Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Revised minimum standards for practices offering assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril 2006; 86:S53–6.Google Scholar
Van Voorhis, B., Thomas, M., Surrey, E. and Sparks, A. What do consistently high- performing in vitro fertilization programs in the U.S. do? Fertil Steril 2010; 94:1346–9.Google Scholar
Morbeck, J. Air quality in the assisted reproduction laboratory: a mini-review. Assist Reprod Genet 2015; 32:1019–24.Google Scholar
Carey, R. Improving Healthcare with Control Charts (New York: ASQ Quality Press, 2003).Google Scholar
Mortimer, S. T. and Mortimer, D. Quality and Risk Management in the IVF Laboratory, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Disclosure of medical errors involving gametes and embryos. Fertil Steril 2011; 96:1312–14.Google Scholar
Sakkas, D., Pool, T. B. and Barrett, C. B. Analyzing IVF laboratory error rates: highlight or hide? Reprod Biomed Online 2015; 31:447–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
References
Wang, W.-H., Meng, L., Hackett, R. J., Odenbourg, R. and Keefe, D. L. Limited recovery of meiotic spindles in living human oocytes after cooling-rewarming using polarized light microscopy. Hum Reprod 2001; 16:2374–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J., Gilligan, A., Esposito., W. and Schimmel, T. Ambient air and its potential effects on conception in vitro. Hum Reprod 1997; 12:1742–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, J., Gillian, A., Schimmel, T., Cecchi, M. and Cohen, J. The origin, effects and control of air pollution in laboratories used for human embryo culture. Hum Reprod 1998; 13(Suppl. 4):146–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sparks, L. E., Guo, Z., Chang, J. C. and Tichenor, B. A. Volatile organic compound emissions from latex paint: 1. Chamber experiment and source, model development. Indoor Air 1999; 9:10–17.Google Scholar
Elder, K., Van den Bergh, M. and Woodward, B. Troubleshooting and Problem-Solving in the IVF Laboratory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, D. K. and Lane, M. Culture systems for the human embryo, in Textbook of Assisted Reproductive Techniques, Laboratory and Clinical Perspectives, ed. Gardner, D. K., Weissman, A., Howles, C. M. and Shoham, Z., 2nd ed., pp. 211–34 (London: Taylor & Francis, 2005).Google Scholar
Go, K. J., Patel, J. C. and Dietz, R. Troubleshooting in the clinical embryology laboratory: the art of problem-solving in ART, in Practical Manual of In Vitro Fertilization. Advanced Methods and Novel Devices, ed. Nagy, Z. P., Varghese, A. C. and Agarwal, A., pp. 631–7 (New York: Springer, 2012).Google Scholar
Greenblatt, E. M., Meriano, J. S. and Casper, R. F. Type of stimulation protocol affects oocyte maturity, fertilization rate, and cleavage rate after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 1995; 64:557–63.Google Scholar
Morbeck, D. E., Paczkowski, M., Fredrickson, J. R., et al. Composition of protein supplements used for human embryo culture. J Assist Reprod Genet 2014; 31:1703–11.Google Scholar
Otsuki, J., Nagai, Y. and Chiba, K. Damage of embryo development caused by peroxidized mineral oil and its association with albumin in culture. Fertil Steril 2009; 91:1745–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nijs, M., Franssen, K., Cox, A., et al. Reprotoxicity of intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilization – embryo transfer disposables and products: a 4-year survey. Fertil Steril 2009; 92:527–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alikani, M., Go, K. J., McCaffrey, C. and McCulloh, D. M. Comprehensive evaluation of contemporary assisted reproduction technology laboratory operations to determine staffing levels that promote patient safety and quality care. Fertil Steril 2014; 102:1350–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boone, W. R., Johnson, J. E., Locke, A.-J., Crane IV, M. M. and Price, T. M. Control of air quality in an assisted reproductive technology laboratory. Fertil Steril 1999; 71:150–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bormann, C. L., Thirumalaraju, P., Kanakasabapathy, M. K., et al. Consistency and objectivity of automated embryo assessments using deep neural networks. Fertil Steril 2020; 113:781–7.Google Scholar
Bori, L., Paya, E., Alegre, L., et al. Novel and conventional embryo parameters as input data for artificial neural networks: an artificial intelligence model applied for prediction of the implantation potential. Fertil Steril 2020; 114:1232–41.Google Scholar
Curchoe, C.L., Malmsten, J., Bormann, C., et al. Predictive modeling in reproductive medicine: where will the future of artificial intelligence research take us? Fertil Steril 2020; 114:934–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mortimer, D., Cohen, J., Mortimer, S. T., et al. Cairo consensus on the IVF laboratory environment and air quality: report of an expert meeting. Reprod Biomed Online 2018; 36:658–74.Google Scholar
Mortimer, D. and Mortimer, S. T. What’s gone wrong? Troubleshooting, in Quality and Risk Management in the IVF Laboratory, pp. 135–44 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
References
CJM Fauser, B. Towards the global coverage of a unified registry of IVF outcomes. Reprod Biomed Online 2019; 38(2):133–7.Google Scholar
Fertility Clinics & Infertility Services Industry (U.S.), www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5028546/fertility-clinics-and-infertility-services?w=5&utm_source=CI&utm_medium=PressRelease&utm_code=5sk7kf.Google Scholar
Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, U. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030.Google Scholar
Pfeifer, S., Butts, S., Dumesic, D., et al. Recommendations for development of an emergency plan for in vitro fertilization programs: A committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2016; 105: e11–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Planning for Laboratory Operations During a Disaster; Approved Guideline. CLSI document GP36-A (Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2014).Google Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Emergency Preparedness Requirements for Medicare and Medicaid Participating Providers and Suppliers; final rule. Fed Register (2016).Google Scholar
Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Recommendations for development of an emergency plan for in vitro fertilization programs: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2012; 98(1):e3–5.Google Scholar
Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Reproductive Biologists and Technologists, and Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Cryostorage of reproductive tissues in the in vitro fertilization laboratory: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2020; 114:486–91.Google Scholar