Reproductive Laboratory Regulations, Certifications and Reporting Systems

Chapter

Abstract

The assisted reproductive technology (ART) laboratory must conform to a myriad of rules and regulations, including Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA), the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 (FCSRCA), also known as the Wyden Bill, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In addition, laboratory inspections, personnel certification requirements, and ART data registry systems exist which can make the day to day activity in the ART laboratory complex. This chapter will attempt to provide sufficient background information on all of these rules, regulations, certifications, and registry systems to aid ART laboratory personnel in circumnavigating through this regulatory minefield.

Keywords

Assisted Reproductive Technology Laboratory Andrology laboratory Embryology laboratory Personnel certification Laboratory accreditation Data registry systems 

References

  1. 1.
    Keel B, Schalue T (2004) Accreditation of the ART laboratory: the North American perspective. In: Gardner D et al (eds) Textbook of assisted reproductive techniques. Laboratory and clinical perspectives. Martin Dunitz, Ltd, London, pp 41-50Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Keel B, Schalue T (2001) Accreditation of the ART laboratory: the North American perspective. In: Gardner D et al (eds) Textbook of assisted reproductive techniques. Laboratory and clinical perspectives. Martin Dunitz, Ltd, London, pp 35-45Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    United States Food and Drug Administration. 2008 (cited 2008 March 19); Available from: http://www.fda.gov/
  4. 4.
    Code of Federal Register (1992) Clinical laboratory improvement amendments of 1988: final rule. Fed Regist 57:7002Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Code of Federal Register (2003) Medicare, Medicaid, and CLIA programs; laboratory requirements relating to quality systems and certain personnel qualifications. Final rule. Fed Regist 68:3639-3714Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    PL. 102-493 (1992) The fertility clinic success rate and certification act of 1992. 102nd Congress, Second SessionGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Food and Drug Administration. Human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products. 2008 (cited 2008 March 20); Available from: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/21cfr1271_07.html
  8. 8.
    Keel B (1998) The assisted reproductive technology laboratories and regulatory agencies. In: May J (ed) Infertility and reproductive medicine clinics of North America. W.B. Saunders Co, Philadelphia, pp 311-330Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keel B (2000) Clinical laboratory improvement amendments of 1988 (CLIA’88): a review. In: Keel B, May J, DeJong C (eds) Handbook of the assisted reproduction laboratory. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 327-357Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keel B (2000) The physician-laboratory relationship. In: Keel B, May J, DeJong C (eds) Handbook of the assisted reproduction laboratory. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 359-366Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2008 (cited 2008 March 19); Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/
  12. 12.
    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 2008 (cited 2008 March 19); Available from: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/
  13. 13.
    College of American Pathology (1992) CLIA’88 final rules: a summary of major provisions of the final rules implementing the clinical laboratory improvement amendments of 1998. The College of American Pathologists, Northfield, ILGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stull TM, Hearn TI, Hancock JS, Handsfield JH, Collins CL (1998) Variation in proficiency testing performance by testing site. JAMA 279:462-467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    American Association of Bioanalysts. 2008 (cited 2008 March 19); Available from: http://www.aab.org/
  16. 16.
    College of American Pathologists. 2008 (cited 2008 March 19); Available from: http://www.cap.org/apps/cap.portal
  17. 17.
    Quinn P, Keel B, Serafy NTJ, Serafy NTS, Schmidt CF, Hortsman FC (1998) Results of the American Association of Bioanalysts (AAB) embryology proficiency testing (PT) program. Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, S100Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Keel B, Quinn P, Schmidt CF, Serafy NTJ, Serafy NTS, Schalue T (2000) Results of the American association of bioanalysts national proficiency testing programme in andrology. Hum Reprod 15:680-686CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Keel B (2004) How reliable are results from the semen analysis? Fertil Steril 82:41-44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Keel B, Stembridge T, Pineda G, Serafy NTS (2002) Lack of standardization in performance of the semen analysis among laboratories in the United States. Fertil Steril 78:603-608CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tomlinson M, Barratt C (2000) Internal and external control in the andrology laboratory. In Keel B, DeJong C, May J (eds) Handbook of the assisted reproduction laboratory. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p 269Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Keel B (2002) Quality control, quality assurance, and proficiency testing in the andrology laboratory. Arch Androl 48:417-431CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Johnson C, Kellum T, Boldt J et al (2000) Quality assurance in the embryology, andrology and endocrine laboratories. In Keel B, DeJong C, May J (eds) Handbook of the assisted reproduction laboratory. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p 279Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Go K (2000) Quality control: a framework for the ART laboratory. In: Keel B, DeJong C, May J (eds) Handbook of the assisted reproduction laboratory. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 253-268Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) Laboratory Director Responsibilities. 2006 (cited 2008 March 20); Available from: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/CLIA/downloads/brochure7.pdf
  26. 26.
    United States Department of Health and Human Services. 2008 (cited 2008 March 19); Available from: http://www.hhs.gov/
  27. 27.
    Commission on Office Laboratory Accreditation. 2008 (cited 2008 March 19); Available from: http://www.cola.org/
  28. 28.
    The Joint Commission. 2008 (cited 2008 March 19); Available from: http://www.jointcommission.org/
  29. 29.
    Visscher R (1991) Partners in pursuit of excellence: development of an embryo laboratory accreditation program. Fertil Steril 56:1201-1202Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lawrence L, Rosenwaks Z (1993) Implications of the fertility clinic success rate and certification act of 1992. Fertil Steril 59:288-290PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Code of Federal Register (1999) Implementation of the fertility clinic success rate and certification Act of 1992 - a model program for certification of embryo laboratories. Fed Regist 64:39374-39392Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    RESOLVE. 2008 (cited 2008 March 19); Available from: http://www.resolve.org/site/PageServer?pagename=homepage
  33. 33.
    American Society for Reproductive Medicine. 2008 (cited 2008 March 19); Available from: http://www.asrm.org/
  34. 34.
    Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2008 (cited 2008 March 19); Available from: http://www.sart.org/
  35. 35.
    American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2006) Revised guidelines for human embryology and andrology laboratories. Fertil Steril 86(Suppl.4):S57-S72Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Food and Drug Administration. 21CFR1271: Human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products. 2007 (cited 2008 March 20); Available from: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/21cfr1271_07.html
  37. 37.
    Food and Drug Administration (2001) Human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products; establishment registration and listing. Fed Regist 66:5447-5469Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Food and Drug Administration (2004) Eligibility determination for donors of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products. Fed Regist 69:29786-29834Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: eligibility determination for donors of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps). 2004 (cited 2008 March 20); Available from: http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/tissdonor.pdf
  40. 40.
    Food and Drug Administration. Center for biologics evaluation and research. 2008 (cited 2008 March 20); Available from: http://www.fda.gov/cber/tiss.htm
  41. 41.
    Food and Drug Administration (2004) Current good tissue practice for human cell, tissue, and cellular and tissue-based product establishments; inspection and enforcement. Fed Regist 69:68612-68688Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    The Joint Commission. Facts about Laboratory Accreditation. 2008 (cited February 22, 2008); Available from: http://www.jointcommission.org/AccreditationPrograms/LaboratoryServices/lab_facts.htm
  43. 43.
    American College of Microbiology. 2008 (cited 2008 March 19); Available from: http://www.microbiologycert.org/
  44. 44.
    American Board of Clinical Chemistry. 2008 (cited 2008 March 19); Available from: http://apps.aacc.org/abcc/
  45. 45.
    American Board of Bioanalysis. 2008 (cited February 20, 2008); Available from: http://www.aab.org/abb%20home%20page.htm
  46. 46.
    American Board of Medical Genetics. 2008 (cited 2008 March 19); Available from: http://www.abmg.org/
  47. 47.
    American Board of Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics. 2008 (cited 2008 March 19); Available from: http://www.ashi-hla.org/abhi/
  48. 48.
    American Board of Forensic Toxicology. 2008 (cited 2008 March 19); Available from: http://www.abft.org/
  49. 49.
    National Registry of Certified Chemists. 2008 (cited 2008 March 19); Available from: http://www.nrcc6.org/
  50. 50.
    Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (1988) In vitro fertilization/embryo transfer in the United States: 1985 and 1986 results from the National IVF/ET Registry. Fertil Steril 49:212-215Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (1996) Assisted reproductive technology in the United States and Canada: 1994 results generated from the American Fertility Society/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril 66:697-705Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (1995) Assisted reproductive technology in the United States and Canada: 1993 results generated from the American Fertility Society/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril 64:13-21Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (1993) Assisted reproductive technology in the United States and Canada: 1991 results from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology generated from the American Fertility Society Registry. Fertil Steril 59:956-962Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (1992) Assisted reproductive technology in the United States and Canada: 1992 results generated from the American Fertility Society/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology generated Registry. Fertil Steril 62:1121-1128Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (1992) In vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) in the United States: 1990 results from the IVF-ET registry. Fertil Steril 57:15-24Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (1991) In vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) in the United States: 1989 results from the IVF-ET registry. Fertil Steril 55:14-22Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (1990) In vitro fertilization-embryo transfer in the United States: 1988 results from the National IVF-ET registry. Fertil Steril 53:13-20Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (1989) In vitro fertilization/embryo transfer in the United States: 1987 results from the National IVF-ET registry. Fertil Steril 51:13-19Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1997) 1995 assisted reproductive technology success rates. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (2007) Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 2001 results generated from the American Fertility Society/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril 87:1253-1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (2004) Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 2000 results generated from the American Fertility Society/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril 81:1207-1220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (2002) Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 1999 results generated from the American Fertility Society/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril 78:918-931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (2002) Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 1998 results generated from the American Fertility Society/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril 77:18-31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (2000) Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 1997 results generated from the American Fertility Society/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril 74:641-653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (1999) Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 1996 results generated from the American Fertility Society/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril 71:798-807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (1998) Assisted reproductive technology in the United States and Canada: 1995 results generated from the American Fertility Society/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril 69:389-398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Gunby J, Daya S (2005) Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) in Canada: 2001 results from the Canadian ART Register. Fertil Steril 84:590-599CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2004) Assisted reproductive technology surveillance - United States, 2001. MMWR 53Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Gunby J, Daya S (2007) Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) in Canada: 2003 results from the Canadian ART Register. Fertil Steril 88:550-559CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    AIHW National Perinatal Statistics Unit. 2008 November 23, 2007 (cited 2008 March 19). Available from: http://www.npsu.unsw.edu.au/NPSUweb.nsf/page/home
  71. 71.
    Waters A-M, Dean J, Sullivan E (2003) Assisted reproduction technology in Australia and New Zealand 2003. AIHW National Perinatal Statistics Unit, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Wang Y, Dean J, Sullivan E (2007) Assisted reproduction technology in Australia and New Zealand 2005. AIHW National Perinatal Statistics Unit, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Wang Y, Dean J, Grayson N, Sullivan E (2006) Assisted reproduction technology in Australia and New Zealand. AIHW National Perinatal Statistics Unit, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Lancaster P, Shafir E, Hurst T, Huang J (1997) Assisted conception Australia and New Zealand, 1994 and 1995. AIHW National Perinatal Statistics Unit, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Lancaster P, Shafir E, Huang J (1995) Assisted conception, Australia and New Zealand, 1992 and 1993. AIHW National Perinatal Statistics Unit, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Hurst T, Shafir E, Lancaster P (1999) Assisted conception Australia and New Zealand 1997. AIHW National Perinatal Statistics Unit, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Hurst T, Shafir E, Lancaster P (1997) Assisted conception, Australia and New Zealand 1996. AIHW National Perinatal Statistics Unit, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Hurst T, Lancaster P (2001) Assisted conception Australia and New Zealand 1999 and 2000. AIHW National Perinatal Statistics Unit, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Hurst T, Lancaster P (2001) Assisted conception Australia and New Zealand 1998 and 1999. AIHW National Perinatal Statistics Unit, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Dean J, Sullivan E (2003) Assisted conception Australia and New Zealand 2000 and 2001. AIHW National Perinatal Statistics Unit, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Bryant J, Sullivan E, Dean J (2002) Assisted reproduction technology in Australia and New Zealand. AIHW National Perinatal Statistics Unit, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Nygren K, Andersen AN (2001) Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 1997. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 16:384-391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Nygren K, Andersen AN (2002) Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 1999. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 17:3260-3274CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Nygren K, Andersen AN (2001) Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 1998. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 16:2459-2471PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Andersen AN, Goossens V, Gianaroli L, Felberbaum R, De Mouzon J, Nygren K (2007) Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2003. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 22:1513-1525CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Andersen AN, Gianaroli L, Nygren K (2004) Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2000. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 19:490-503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Andersen AN, Gianaroli L, Felberbaum R, De Mouzon J (2006) Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2002. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 21:1680-1697CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Andersen AN, Felberbaum R, de Mouzon J, Nygren K (2005) Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2001. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 20:1158-1176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Adamson G, de Mouzon J, Lancaster P, Nygren K, Sullivan E, Zegers-Hochschild F (2006) World collaborative report on in vitro fertilization, 2000. Fertil Steril 85:1586-1622CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of Biological Sciences and Research and Economic DevelopmentLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA
  2. 2.Birenbaum and AssociatesSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations