Literature DB >> 27387889

Electronic witness system in IVF-patients perspective.

Marina Forte1, Federica Faustini1, Roberta Maggiulli1, Catello Scarica1,2, Stefania Romano1, Christian Ottolini2, Alessio Farcomeni3, Antonio Palagiano4, Antonio Capalbo1,5, Filippo Maria Ubaldi1, Laura Rienzi6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate patient concerns about in vitro fertilization (IVF) errors and electronic witness systems (EWS) satisfaction.
DESIGN: The design of this study is a prospective single-center cohort study.
SETTING: The setting of this study was located in the private IVF center. PATIENT(S): Four hundred eight infertile patients attending an IVF cycle at a GENERA center in Italy were equipped with an EWS. INTERVENTION(S): Although generally recognized as a very rare event in IVF, biological sample mix-up has been reported in the literature. For this reason, some IVF laboratories have introduced EWS with the aim to further reduce the risk of error during biological samples handling. Participating patients received a questionnaire developed through a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 6. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE(S): Patient concerns about sample mix-up without and with an EWS were assessed. RESULT(S): 90.4 % of patients expressed significant concerns relating to sample mix-up. The EWS reduced these concerns in 92.1 % of patients, 97.1 % of which were particularly satisfied with the electronic traceability of their gametes and embryos in the IVF laboratory. 97.1 % of patients felt highly comfortable with an IVF center equipped with an EWS. Female patients had a significantly higher appreciation of the EWS when compared to their male partners (p = 0.029). A significant mix-up event occurred in an Italian hospital during the study and patient's satisfaction increased significantly towards the use of the EWS after the event (p = 0.032). CONCLUSION(S): EWS, by sensibly reducing the risk for sample mix-up in IVF cycles, has been proved to be a trusted strategy from patient's perspective.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Embryo labeling; IVF mix-up; Patient’s perspective; Traceability; Witnessing system

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27387889      PMCID: PMC5010816          DOI: 10.1007/s10815-016-0759-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet        ISSN: 1058-0468            Impact factor:   3.412


  13 in total

1.  IVF mixup: white couple have black babies.

Authors:  M Spriggs
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  Are you my parent? Are you my child? The role of genetics and race in defining relationships after reproductive technological mistakes.

Authors:  Raizel Liebler
Journal:  DePaul J Health Care Law       Date:  2002

3.  A novel embryo identification system by direct tagging of mouse embryos using silicon-based barcodes.

Authors:  Sergi Novo; Leonardo Barrios; Josep Santaló; Rodrigo Gómez-Martínez; Marta Duch; Jaume Esteve; José Antonio Plaza; Carme Nogués; Elena Ibáñez
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2010-11-18       Impact factor: 6.918

4.  A comparison of psychological functioning in women at different stages of in vitro fertilization treatment using the mean affect adjective check list.

Authors:  P Yong; C Martin; J Thong
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 3.412

5.  Involuntary automaticity: a work-system induced risk to safe health care.

Authors:  Brian Toft; Hugo Mascie-Taylor
Journal:  Health Serv Manage Res       Date:  2005-11

6.  Lack of effect of 2.45-GHz microwave radiation on the development of preimplantation embryos of mice.

Authors:  M Inouye; N Matsumoto; M J Galvin; D I McRee
Journal:  Bioelectromagnetics       Date:  1982       Impact factor: 2.010

7.  Psychological and hormonal changes in the course of in vitro fertilization.

Authors:  D Merari; D Feldberg; A Elizur; J Goldman; B Modan
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 3.412

8.  Gender differences in how men and women who are referred for IVF cope with infertility stress.

Authors:  B D Peterson; C R Newton; K H Rosen; G E Skaggs
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2006-05-04       Impact factor: 6.918

Review 9.  Protocols for tracking and witnessing samples and patients in assisted reproductive technology.

Authors:  Maria José de los Santos; Amparo Ruiz
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 7.329

10.  Revised guidelines for good practice in IVF laboratories.

Authors:  M Cristina Magli; Etienne Van den Abbeel; Kersti Lundin; Dominique Royere; Josiane Van der Elst; Luca Gianaroli
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2008-03-28       Impact factor: 6.918

View more
  5 in total

1.  Femtosecond laser is effective tool for zona pellucida engraving and tagging of preimplantation mammalian embryos.

Authors:  Inna V Ilina; Yulia V Khramova; Maxim A Filatov; Dmitry S Sitnikov
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-05-30       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  Fertility technologies and how to optimize laboratory performance to support the shortening of time to birth of a healthy singleton: a Delphi consensus.

Authors:  Giovanni Coticchio; Barry Behr; Alison Campbell; Marcos Meseguer; Dean E Morbeck; Valerio Pisaturo; Carlos E Plancha; Denny Sakkas; Yanwen Xu; Thomas D'Hooghe; Evelyn Cottell; Kersti Lundin
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-02-18       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  ISAR Consensus Guidelines on Safety and Ethical Practices in In vitro Fertilization Clinics.

Authors:  Jaideep Malhotra; Keshav Malhotra; Pankaj Talwar; Priya Kannan; Prabhakar Singh; Yogesh Kumar; Nishad Chimote; Charudutt Joshi; Sachin Bawle; R B Agarwal; Saroj Agarwal; Ved Prakash; Pooja Awasthi; Sanjay Shukla; Ram Prakash; Satish Kumar Adiga
Journal:  J Hum Reprod Sci       Date:  2021-11-16

4.  A Preliminary Experience of Integration of an Electronic Witness System, its Validation, Efficacy on Lab Performance, and Staff Satisfaction Assessment in a Busy Indian in vitro Fertilization Laboratory.

Authors:  Sweta Gupta; Ashish Fauzdar; Vikram Jeet Singh; Ajay Srivastava; Kamlesh Sharma; Sabina Singh
Journal:  J Hum Reprod Sci       Date:  2020-12-28

5.  Comparison of electronic versus manual witnessing of procedures within the in vitro fertilization laboratory: impact on timing and efficiency.

Authors:  Rebecca Holmes; Kelly Athayde Wirka; Allison Baxter Catherino; Brooke Hayward; Jason E Swain
Journal:  F S Rep       Date:  2021-04-28
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.