A Preliminary Experience of Integration of an Electronic Witness System, its Validation, Efficacy on Lab Performance, and Staff Satisfaction Assessment in a Busy Indian in vitro Fertilization Laboratory

Electronic witnessing in the medically assisted reproduction laboratory: insights and considerations after 10 years of use

STUDY QUESTION

What have we learnt after 10 years of electronic witnessing?

SUMMARY ANSWER

When applied correctly, an electronic witnessing system can replace manual witnessing in the medically assisted reproduction lab to prevent sample mix-up.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Electronic witnessing systems have been implemented to improve the correct identification, processing, and traceability of biological materials. When non-matching samples are simultaneously present in a single workstation, a mismatch event is generated to prevent sample mix-up.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This evaluation investigates the mismatch and administrator assign rate over a 10-year period (March 2011-December 2021) with the use of an electronic witnessing system. Radiofrequency identification tags and barcodes were used for patient and sample identification. Since 2011, IVF and ICSI cycles and frozen embryo transfer cycles (FET) were included; IUIs cycles were included since 2013.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The total number of tags and witnessing points were recorded. Witnessing points in a particular electronic witnessing system represent all the actions that have been performed from gamete collection through embryo production, to cryopreservation and transfer. Mismatches and administrator assigns were collected and stratified per procedure (sperm preparation, oocyte retrieval, IVF/ICSI, cleavage stage embryo or blastocyst embryo biopsy, vitrification and warming, embryo transfer, medium changeover, and IUI). Critical mismatches (such as mislabelling or non-matching samples within one work area) and critical administrator assigns (such as samples not identified by the electronic witnessing system and unconfirmed witnessing points) were selected.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 109 655 cycles were included: 53 023 IVF/ICSI, 36 347 FET, and 20 285 IUI cycles. The 724 096 used tags, led to a total of 849 650 witnessing points. The overall mismatch rate was 0.251% (2132/849 650) per witnessing point and 1.944% per cycle. In total, 144 critical mismatches occurred over the different procedures. The yearly mean critical mismatch rate was 0.017 ± 0.007% per witnessing point and 0.129 ± 0.052% per cycle. The overall administrator assign rate was 0.111% (940/849 650) per witnessing point and 0.857% per cycle, including 320 critical administrator assigns. The yearly mean critical administrator assign rate was 0.039 ± 0.010% per witnessing point and 0.301 ± 0.069% per cycle. Overall mismatch and administrator assign rates remained fairly stable during the evaluated time period. Sperm preparation and IVF/ICSI were the procedures most prone to critical mismatch and administrator assigns.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The procedures and methods of integration of an electronic witnessing system may vary from one laboratory to another and result in differences in the potential risks related to sample identification. Individual embryos cannot (yet) be identified by such a system; this makes extra manual witnessing indispensable at certain critical steps where potential errors are not recorded. The electronic witnessing system still needs to be used in combination with manual labelling of both the bottom and lid of dishes and tubes to guarantee correct assignment in case of malfunction or incorrect use of radiofrequency identification tags.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Electronic witnessing is considered to be the ultimate tool to safeguard correct identification of gametes and embryos. But this is only possible when used correctly, and proper training and attention of the staff is required. It may also induce new risks, i.e. blind witnessing of samples by the operator.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No funding was either sought or obtained for this study. J.S. presents webinars on RIW for CooperSurgical. The remaining authors have nothing to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Automation in ART: Paving the Way for the Future of Infertility Treatment

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is estimated to account for the birth of more than nine million babies worldwide, perhaps making it one of the most intriguing as well as commoditised and industrialised modern medical interventions. Nevertheless, most IVF procedures are currently limited by accessibility, affordability and most importantly multistep, labour-intensive, technically challenging processes undertaken by skilled professionals. Therefore, in order to sustain the exponential demand for IVF on one hand, and streamline existing processes on the other, innovation is essential. This may not only effectively manage clinical time but also reduce cost, thereby increasing accessibility, affordability and efficiency. Recent years have seen a diverse range of technologies, some integrated with artificial intelligence, throughout the IVF pathway, which promise personalisation and, at least, partial automation in the not-so-distant future. This review aims to summarise the rapidly evolving state of these innovations in automation, with or without the integration of artificial intelligence, encompassing the patient treatment pathway, gamete/embryo selection, endometrial evaluation and cryopreservation of gametes/embryos. Additionally, it shall highlight the resulting prospective change in the role of IVF professionals and challenges of implementation of some of these technologies, thereby aiming to motivate continued research in this field.