Electronic witness system in IVF—patients perspective
- 297 Downloads
The objective of this study is to evaluate patient concerns about in vitro fertilization (IVF) errors and electronic witness systems (EWS) satisfaction.
The design of this study is a prospective single-center cohort study.
The setting of this study was located in the private IVF center.
Four hundred eight infertile patients attending an IVF cycle at a GENERA center in Italy were equipped with an EWS.
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.
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).
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.
KeywordsEmbryo labeling IVF mix-up Traceability Witnessing system Patient’s perspective
We are very thankful to the patients who completed the questionnaire and consented to this analysis.
Compliance with ethical standards
The institutional review board of the Valle Giulia Clinic approved the study, and signed informed consent was obtained from all patients recruited.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 1.Thornhill AR, Brunetti, XO, Bird S. Reducing human error in IVF with electronic witnessing. Fertil Steril. 2011;96, Issue 3, Supplement, S179.Google Scholar
- 4.Bender L. To err is human. ART mix-ups: a labor-based, relational proposal. J Race Gend Justice. 2006;9:443–508.Google Scholar
- 8.Schnauffer K, Kingsland C, Troup S. Barcode labelling in the IVF laboratory. Hum Reprod. 2005; (abstract) 214:i79.Google Scholar
- 11.Thornhill AR, Brunetti XO, Bird S. Reducing human error in IVF with electronic witnessing. Fertil Steril. 2011; 96, Issue 3, Supplement, S179.Google Scholar
- 12.Schnauffer K, Kingsland C, Troup S. Barcode labelling in 1 the IVF laboratory. Hum Reprod. 2005;20 suppl 1:i79–80.Google Scholar
- 15.Lansdowne - 2005 - Test report on mouse testing of RFID tagging system. RFID Tagging system “IVF Witness” Written for the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Published: 8th September 2005.Google Scholar
- 16.Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer; 1984.Google Scholar
- 17.Lazarus AA, Fay A. I can if I want to: change your thinking, change your behaviour, change your life. New York: Quill, William Morrow; 1975.Google Scholar