Skip to main content

Risk and Safety in the IVF Clinic

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
In Vitro Fertilization
  • 2090 Accesses

Abstract

Prioritizing is an important part of risk management as it helps us to allocate resources to where they are of most utility. This requires us to quantify the different risks. All severe risks must be addressed as they can threaten the continued existence of the clinic or the life of a patient. However, also insignificant events that are highly likely to occur should be addressed, as they will drain the resources of the clinic. This process only indicates the priorities but does not suggest how to address the risk issue. In assessing risk, we are often hampered by the lack of knowledge of the exact nature of the risks, and quantifying the risk of rare events is problematic. Also, when assessing outcomes, one must know what to look for, and in many cases, we have a limited knowledge of the processes in human development and their vulnerabilities to our in vitro systems and the endocrine environment we create in ART. In principle, there are three ways of managing risk: elimination, reduction, and transfer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. ESHRE position paper 2008. Good clinical treatment in assisted reproduction. http://www.eshre.eu/binarydata.aspx?type=doc&sessionId=ikjoq445p2t0mxjcr02o3h45/Good_Clinical_treatment_in_Assisted_Reproduction_ENGLISH_new.pdf. Accessed 14 Oct 2016.

  2. Gleicher N, Barad D. Twin pregnancy, contrary to consensus, is a desirable outcome in infertility. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(6):2426–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sauer MV. Italian law 40/2004: a view from the ‘wild west’. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12(1):8–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Braat DD, Schutte JM, Bernardus RE, Mooij TM, van Leeuwen FE. Maternal death related to IVF in the Netherlands 1984-2008. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:1782–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Adams S, Carthey J. IVF witnessing and electronic systems—final report 2006. Accessed 14 Dec 2016. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/Witnessing_samples_id_report.pdf.

  6. Kupka MS, D’Hooghe T, Ferraretti AP, de Mouzon J, Erb K, Castilla JA, Calhaz-Jorge C, De Geyter C, Goossens V. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2011: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. European IVF-monitoring consortium (EIM).; European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Hum Reprod. 2016;31(2):233–48.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gozlan I, Dor A, Farber B, Meirow D, Feinstein S, Levron J. Comparing intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization in patients with single oocyte retrieval. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(3):515–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kim HH, Bundorf MK, Behr B, McCallum SW. Use and outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection for non-male factor infertility. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(3):622–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Luna M, Bigelow C, Duke M, Ruman J, Sandler B, Grunfeld L, Copperman AB. Should ICSI be recommended routinely in patients with four or fewer oocytes retrieved? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011;28(10):911–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tomás C, Orava M, Tuomivaara L, Martikainen H. Low pregnancy rate is achieved in patients treated with intracytoplasmic sperm injection due to previous low or failed fertilization in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(1):65–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. Hazards of nitrogen asphyxiation. Safety Bulletin No. 2003-10-B: June 2003. http://www.csb.gov/assets/document/SB-Nitrogen-6-11-03.pdf. Accessed 27 Oct 2010.

  12. Tomlinson M. Risk management in cryopreservation associated with assisted reproduction. Cryo Lett. 2008;29:165–74.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

A previous version of this chapter was written in collaboration with the late Dr. Peter Sjöblom. We owe a debt of gratitude to him for his knowledge and his generous input from years of experience in the field of assisted reproduction.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Review Questions

Review Questions

  1. 1.

    How can a risk evaluation be performed using a risk matrix where values of probability and severity are taken into account?

  2. 2.

    Why is an O2 alarm mandatory in storage facilities for liquid nitrogen? Explain.

  3. 3.

    Why is it important to focus on systematic causes of errors in any given process instead of conferring blame to individuals?

  4. 4.

    What are the different kinds of burden conferred on a clinic by infrequent and serious errors vs. frequent and minor errors, respectively? Explain.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hreinsson, J., Borg, K. (2019). Risk and Safety in the IVF Clinic. In: Nagy, Z., Varghese, A., Agarwal, A. (eds) In Vitro Fertilization. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43011-9_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43011-9_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43010-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43011-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics