Advertisement

Benchmarking and Decision Making in the IVF Laboratory

  • Julius Hreinsson
Chapter

Abstract

Measuring the performance of the IVF laboratory is important for the purpose of monitoring current activities and also for further development. Although the most common indicator of performance is the clinics’ pregnancy rate, the IVF laboratory needs to monitor a larger number of parameters to acquire sufficient information of the daily processes. The chapter details the most common key performance indicators and suggests benchmark levels as well as gives advice on how to evaluate them. Aspects of improving decision making are discussed.

Keywords

KPI Benchmarking Trouble shooting Quality control Assisted reproduction Decision making 

References

  1. 1.
    ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology and Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine. The Vienna consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of ART laboratory performance indicators. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;35(5):494–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mortimer S, Mortimer D. Quality and risk management in the IVF laboratory. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Academic. Cambridge University Press; 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alpha Scientists In Reproductive Medicine. The Alpha consensus meeting on cryopreservation key performance indicators and benchmarks: proceedings of an expert meeting. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;25(2):146–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hirst WM, Vail A, Brison DR, Roberts SA. Prognostic factors influencing fresh and frozen IVF outcomes: an analysis of the UK national database. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;22(5):437–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stiegler MP, Neelankavil JP, Canales C, Dhillon A. Cognitive errors detected in anaesthesiology: a literature review and pilot study. Br J Anaesth. 2012;108:229–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Groopman J. How doctors think. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company; 2007.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux; 2011.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bazerman MH, Moore DA. Judgment in managerial decision making. 7th ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2009.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mukaida T, Oka C, Goto T, Takahashi K. Artificial shrinkage of blastocoeles using either a micro-needle or a laser pulse prior to the cooling steps of vitrification improves survival rate and pregnancy outcome of vitrified human blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(12):3246–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Landuyt L, Polyzos NP, De Munck N, Blockeel C, Van de Velde H, Verheyen G. A prospective randomized controlled trial investigating the effect of artificial shrinkage (collapse) on the implantation potential of vitrified blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(11):2509–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flin RH, O’Connor P, Crichton M. Safety at the sharp end: a guide to non-technical skills. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.; 2008.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bruzelius LH, Skärvad P-H. Integrerad organisationslära (Integrated organization theory). 9th ed. Lund: Studentlitteratur; 2008.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julius Hreinsson
    • 1
  1. 1.Mount Sinai FertilityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations