Skip to main content
Log in

Electronic witness system in IVF—patients perspective

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Thornhill AR, Brunetti, XO, Bird S. Reducing human error in IVF with electronic witnessing. Fertil Steril. 2011;96, Issue 3, Supplement, S179.

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Spriggs M. IVF mixup: white couple have black babies. J Med Ethics. 2003;29:65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  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 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Schnauffer K, Kingsland C, Troup S. Barcode labelling in the IVF laboratory. Hum Reprod. 2005; (abstract) 214:i79.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  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.

  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. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  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.

  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 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Eugster A, Vingerhoets AJ. Psychological aspects of in vitro fertilization: a review. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:575–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are very thankful to the patients who completed the questionnaire and consented to this analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Rienzi.

Ethics declarations

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.

Additional information

Capsule EWS is able to contain patient concerns about possible errors in biological sample manipulation and will increase patient satisfaction towards the IVF Clinic, especially after of the embryo exchange that happened at an Italian Hospital in 2013.

Marina Forte and Federica Faustini contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Forte, M., Faustini, F., Maggiulli, R. et al. Electronic witness system in IVF—patients perspective. J Assist Reprod Genet 33, 1215–1222 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0759-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0759-4

Keywords

Navigation