Implementation of an Electronic Whiteboard for Quality Management in the in Vitro Fertilization Laboratory

Phillip A. Romanski,Ann M. Thomas,Jay Patel,Dan Zhang,Catherine Racowsky

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.07.151

IF: 6.7

2019-01-01

Fertility and Sterility

Abstract:In 2014, we implemented an electronic whiteboard as a quality management tool to assist our embryologists to ensure their adherence to established standards for performing time-sensitive procedures (1). We aimed to test the hypothesis that use of an electronic whiteboard in the IVF laboratory increases the likelihood that critical evaluation procedures are performed within optimum pre-set time ranges. Retrospective cohort study. Retrievals in our IVF clinic between 6/1/12 and 5/31/18 were included. The pre-electronic whiteboard time-period was 6/1/12 to 4/5/14, during which embryologists strived to adhere to the set optimum evaluation times but without a formal guide. The post-electronic whiteboard time-period was 3/1/15 to 5/31/18. The 13 months after the electronic whiteboard was introduced (4/6/14-2/28/15) were defined as a transition period and were excluded. Optimum pre-set time ranges were 16-18 hours post-insemination or ICSI (HPI) for the pronuclei (PN) check, 65-67 HPI for day 3 evaluations and 114-117 HPI for day 5 evaluations. Log binomial models estimated the risk ratio (RR, 95% confidence interval [CI]) of evaluations occurring within the optimum time ranges. Models were adjusted a priori for ICSI. A total of 44,957 oocytes from 6,302 retrievals met inclusion criteria, of which 44.4% underwent ICSI. There were 16,434 oocytes from 2,703 retrievals pre-electronic whiteboard and 28,523 oocytes from 3,599 retrievals post-electronic whiteboard. The proportion of oocytes evaluated at the PN check within the optimum time range was statistically significantly increased after implementation of the electronic whiteboard (89.2% vs 80.8%, RR 1.11 [95% CI 1.10 – 1.12]). The proportion of day 3 and day 5 checks that occurred within the optimum time ranges were also statistically significantly increased after implementation of the electronic whiteboard (day 3: 73.3% vs 57.2%, RR 1.75 [95% CI 1.54 – 1.99]) and (day 5: 74.1% vs 58.8%, RR 1.26 [95% CI 1.24 – 1.29]). Our findings indicate that use of an electronic whiteboard that posts optimum time ranges for performing critical IVF laboratory procedures tightens the actual evaluation times towards these ranges. Such improved standardization may lead to positive downstream effects on quality assurance analyses and embryo transfer and embryo cryopreservation management decisions. Future studies will investigate whether use of an electronic whiteboard in the IVF laboratory improves overall clinical care.