Advertisement

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 33, Issue 9, pp 1215–1222 | Cite as

Electronic witness system in IVF—patients perspective

  • Marina Forte
  • Federica Faustini
  • Roberta Maggiulli
  • Catello Scarica
  • Stefania Romano
  • Christian Ottolini
  • Alessio Farcomeni
  • Antonio Palagiano
  • Antonio Capalbo
  • Filippo Maria Ubaldi
  • Laura RienziEmail author
Assisted Reproduction Technologies

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.

Keywords

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

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. 2.
    Liebler R. Are you my parent? Are you my child? The role of genetics and race in defining relationships after reproductive technological mistakes. DePaul J Health Care Law. 2002;5:15–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Spriggs M. IVF mixup: white couple have black babies. J Med Ethics. 2003;29:65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 5.
    Magli MC, Van den Abbeel E, Lundin K, Royere D, Van der Elst J, Gianaroli L. Committee of the special interest group on embryology. Revised guidelines for good practice in IVF laboratories. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:1253–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Toft B, Mascie-Taylor H. Involuntary automaticity: a work-system induced risk to safe health care. Health Serv Manage Res. 2005;18:211–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De los Santos MJ, Ruiz A. Protocols for tracking and witnessing samples and patients in assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(6):1499–502. Review.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schnauffer K, Kingsland C, Troup S. Barcode labelling in the IVF laboratory. Hum Reprod. 2005; (abstract) 214:i79.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Novo S, Barrios L, Santaló J, Gòmez-Martìnez R, Duch M, Esteve J, et al. A novel embryo identification system by direct tagging of mouse embryos using silicon-based barcodes. Hum Reprod. 2011;6(1):96–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Glew AM, Hoha K, Graves J, Lawrence H, Read S, Moye AH. Radio frequency identity tags ‘RFID’ for electronic witnessing of IVF laboratory procedures. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(3):S170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. 12.
    Schnauffer K, Kingsland C, Troup S. Barcode labelling in 1 the IVF laboratory. Hum Reprod. 2005;20 suppl 1:i79–80.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Valbonesi P, Franzellitti S, Piano A, Contin A, Biondi C, Fabbri E. Evaluation of HSP70 expression and DNA damage in cells of a human trophoblast cell line exposed to 1.8 GHz amplitude-modulated radiofrequency fields. Radiat Res. 2008;169(3):270–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Inouye M, Matsumoto N, Galvin MJ, McRee DI. Lack of effect of 2.45-GHz microwave radiation on the development of preimplantation embryos of mice. Bioelectromagnetics. 1982;3(2):275–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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. 16.
    Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer; 1984.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 18.
    Merari D, Feldberg D, Elizur A, Goldman J, Modan B. Psychological and hormonal changes in the course of in vitro fertilization. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1992;9:161–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boivin J, Takefman JE. Stress level across stages of in vitro fertilization in subsequently pregnant and non pregnant women. Fertil Steril. 1995;64:802–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eugster A, Vingerhoets AJ. Psychological aspects of in vitro fertilization: a review. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:575–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yong P, Martin C, Thong J. A comparison of psychological functioning in women at different stages of in vitro fertilization treatment using the mean affect adjective check list. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2000;17:553–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peterson BD, Newton CR, Rosen KH, Skaggs GE. Gender differences in how men and women referred with in vitro fertilization cope with infertility stress. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:2443–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marina Forte
    • 1
  • Federica Faustini
    • 1
  • Roberta Maggiulli
    • 1
  • Catello Scarica
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stefania Romano
    • 1
  • Christian Ottolini
    • 2
  • Alessio Farcomeni
    • 3
  • Antonio Palagiano
    • 4
  • Antonio Capalbo
    • 1
    • 5
  • Filippo Maria Ubaldi
    • 1
  • Laura Rienzi
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.G.ENE.R.A. Centre for Reproductive MedicineClinica Valle GiuliaRomeItaly
  2. 2.The Bridge CentreLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of Public Health and Infectious DiseasesSapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  4. 4.I University of NaplesNaplesItaly
  5. 5.GENETYXMolecular Genetics LaboratoryVicenzaItaly

Personalised recommendations