Book contents
- Principles of IVF Laboratory Practice
- Principles of IVF Laboratory Practice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Section 1 Starting a New Laboratory and Training Protocols
- Section 2 Pre-Procedure Protocols
- Section 3 Gametes
- Section 4 Insemination/ICSI
- Section 5 Fertilization Assessment
- Section 6 Embryo Assessment
- Section 7 Embryo Cryopreservation
- Section 8 Embryo Biopsy
- Section 9 Embryo Transfer
- Section 10 Quality Management
- Index
- PDF Only
- References
Section 10 - Quality Management
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 May 2017
Book contents
- Principles of IVF Laboratory Practice
- Principles of IVF Laboratory Practice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Section 1 Starting a New Laboratory and Training Protocols
- Section 2 Pre-Procedure Protocols
- Section 3 Gametes
- Section 4 Insemination/ICSI
- Section 5 Fertilization Assessment
- Section 6 Embryo Assessment
- Section 7 Embryo Cryopreservation
- Section 8 Embryo Biopsy
- Section 9 Embryo Transfer
- Section 10 Quality Management
- Index
- PDF Only
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Principles of IVF Laboratory PracticeOptimizing Performance and Outcomes, pp. 259 - 286Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
References
Brison, D. R., Hooper, M., Critchlow, J. D., Hunter, H. R., Arnesen, R. et al. Reducing risk in the IVF laboratory: implementation of a double witnessing system. Clin Risk 2004; 10:176–80.Google Scholar
Jarman, H., Jacobs, E. and Zielinski, V. Medication study supports registered nurses’ competence for single checking. Int J Nurs Pract 2002; 8:330–5.Google Scholar
Rienzi, L., Bariani, F., Dalla Zorza, M., Romano, S., Scarica, C. et al. Failure mode and effects analysis of witnessing protocols for ensuring traceability during IVF. Reprod Biomed Online 2015; 31:516–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thornhill, A. R., Orriols Brunetti, X. and Bird, S. Measuring human error in the IVF laboratory using an electronic witnessing system. In Proceedings of the 17th World Congress on Controversies in Obstetrics, Gynecology & Infertility (COGI '13) (pp. 101–6) (Lisbon, Portugal: Monduzzi Editoriale, 2013).Google Scholar
Toft, B. and Mascie-Taylor, H. Involuntary automaticity: a work-system induced risk to safe health care. Health Serv Manag Res 2005; 18:211–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Armitage, G. Double-checking medicines: defense against error or contributory factor? J Eval Clin Pract 2007; 14:513–19.Google Scholar
Biron, A. D., Loiselle, C. G. and Lavoie-Tremblay, M. Work interruptions and their contribution to medication administration errors: an evidence review. Worldviews Evidence-Based Nursing 2009; 6(2):70–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Novo, S., Nogues, C., Penon, O., Barios, L., Santalo, J. et al. Barcode tagging of human oocytes and embryos to prevent mix-ups in assisted reproduction technologies. Hum Reprod Hum Reprod 2013; 29(1):18–28.Google Scholar
www.slideshare.net/RIUKROB/embryology-id-systems-i-steve-fleming-sydney (accessed 31 August 2015).Google Scholar
References
Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Revised minimum standards for practices offering assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril 2006; 86:S53–6. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.07.1484Google Scholar
Van Voorhis, B., Thomas, M., Surrey, E. and Sparks, A. What do consistently high-performing in vitro fertilization programs in the U.S. do? Fertil Steril 2010; 94:1346–9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.06.048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CLIA Law and Regulations, available at www.n.cdc.gov/clia/Regulatory/ (accessed October 2015).Google Scholar
Morbeck, J. Air quality in the assisted reproduction laboratory: a mini-review. Assist Reprod Genet 2015; 32:1019–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carey, R. Improving Healthcare with Control Charts (New York: ASQ Quality Press, 2003).Google Scholar
Mortimer, S. T. and Mortimer, D. Quality and Risk Management in the IVF Laboratory (2nd edn.) (Cambridge University Press, 2015).Google Scholar
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Disclosure of medical errors involving gametes and embryos. Fertil Steril 2011; 96:1312–14.Google Scholar
Sakkas, D., Pool, T. B. and Barrett, C. B. Analyzing IVF laboratory error rates: highlight or hide? Reprod Biomed Online 2015; 31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
References
Wang, W.-H., Meng, L., Hackett, R. J., Odenbourg, R. and Keefe, D. L. Limited recovery of meiotic spindles in living human oocytes after cooling-rewarming using polarized light microscopy. Hum Reprod 2001; 16:2374–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J., Gilligan, A., Esposito, W. and Schimmel, T. Ambient air and its potential effects on conception in vitro. Hum Reprod 1997; 12:1742–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, J., Gillian, A., Schimmel, T., Cecchi, M. and Cohen, J. The origin, effects and control of air pollution in laboratories used for human embryo culture. Hum Reprod 1998; 13(Suppl. 4):146–55.Google Scholar
Sparks, L. E., Guo, Z., Chang, J. C. and Tichenor, B. A. Volatile organic compound emissions from latex paint: 1. Chamber experiment and source, model development. Indoor Air. 1999; 9:10–7.Google Scholar
Elder, K., Van den Bergh, M. and Woodward, B. Troubleshooting and Problem-Solving in the IVF Laboratory (Cambridge University Press, 2015).Google Scholar
Gardner, D. K. and Lane, M. Culture systems for the human embryo. In Textbook of Assisted Reproductive Techniques, Laboratory and Clinical Perspectives, ed. Gardner, D. K., Weissman, A., Howles, C. M. and Shoham, Z. (2nd edn., pp. 211–34) (London: Taylor & Francis).Google Scholar
Go, K. J., Patel, J. C. and Dietz, R. Troubleshooting in the clinical embryology laboratory: the art of problem-solving in ART. In Practical Manual of In Vitro Fertilization. Advanced Methods and Novel Devices, ed. Nagy, Z. P., Varghese, A. C. and Agarwal, A. (pp. 631–7) (New York: Springer, 2012).Google Scholar
Greenblatt, E. M., Meriano, J. S. and Casper, R. F. Type of stimulation protocol affects oocyte maturity, fertilization rate, and cleavage rate after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 1995; 64:557–63.Google Scholar
Mortimer, D. and Mortimer, S. T. What’s gone wrong? Troubleshooting. In Quality and Risk Management in the IVF Laboratory (pp. 135–44) (Cambridge University Press, 2005).Google Scholar