Book contents
- A Practical Guide to Basic Laboratory Andrology
- A Practical Guide to Basic Laboratory Andrology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Abbreviations
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Basic Physiology
- Chapter 3 Basic Semen Examination
- Chapter 4 Extended Semen Analysis
- Chapter 5 Sperm DNA
- Chapter 6 Computer-Aided Sperm Analysis
- Chapter 7 Sperm Function Tests
- Chapter 8 Tests of Sperm-Cervical Mucus Interaction
- Chapter 9 Sperm Preparation
- Chapter 10 Sperm Cryopreservation
- Chapter 11 Preparation of Surgically Retrieved Spermatozoa
- Chapter 12 Quality Management and Accreditation
- Chapter 13 Risk Management
- Chapter 14 Reproductive Toxicology
- Chapter 15 Andrology Laboratory Safety
- Book part
- Index
- References
Chapter 13 - Risk Management
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 February 2022
Book contents
- A Practical Guide to Basic Laboratory Andrology
- A Practical Guide to Basic Laboratory Andrology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Abbreviations
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Basic Physiology
- Chapter 3 Basic Semen Examination
- Chapter 4 Extended Semen Analysis
- Chapter 5 Sperm DNA
- Chapter 6 Computer-Aided Sperm Analysis
- Chapter 7 Sperm Function Tests
- Chapter 8 Tests of Sperm-Cervical Mucus Interaction
- Chapter 9 Sperm Preparation
- Chapter 10 Sperm Cryopreservation
- Chapter 11 Preparation of Surgically Retrieved Spermatozoa
- Chapter 12 Quality Management and Accreditation
- Chapter 13 Risk Management
- Chapter 14 Reproductive Toxicology
- Chapter 15 Andrology Laboratory Safety
- Book part
- Index
- References
Summary
Following an overview of Risk Management, tools such as Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Root Cause Analysis (RCA) are described. The key role of risk management in laboratory accreditation and certification is discussed, and the main sources of risk in the andrology laboratory are considered. The specific areas of specimen provenance and sperm cryobanking / cryobank management are discussed, as well as the post-analytical phase of sperm testing in terms of results intepretation and diagnosis.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- A Practical Guide to Basic Laboratory Andrology , pp. 290 - 302Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Mortimer, D, Mortimer, ST. Quality and Risk Management in the IVF Laboratory, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, CR. Risk management in assisted reproduction. Clin Risk 2004; 10: 169–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, CR, Mortimer, D. Risk management in IVF. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2007; 21: 691–712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mortimer, D. Setting up risk management systems in IVF laboratories. Clin Risk 2004; 10: 128–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchison, D. Total Quality Management in the Clinical Laboratory. Milwaukee: ASQC Quality Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Reason, JT. Foreword. In: Bogner, MS, ed. Human Error in Medicine. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, 1994.Google Scholar
Bogner, MS (ed). Human Error in Medicine. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, 1994.Google Scholar
Leape, LL. A systems analysis approach to medical error. J Eval Clin Prac 1997; 3: 213–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
International Standards Organization. ISO 15189:2012 Medical Laboratories – Particular Requirements for Quality and Competence. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 2012.Google Scholar
Burnett, D. A Practical Guide to ISO 15189 in Laboratory Medicine. London: ACB Venture Publications, 2013.Google Scholar
Mortimer, D, Barratt, CLR. Is there a real risk of transmitting variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) by donor sperm insemination? Reprod Biomed Online 2006; 13: 778–90.Google Scholar
Bahadur, G, Ling, KL, Hart, R, et al. Semen production in adolescent cancer patients. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 2654–6.Google ScholarPubMed
DeMarco, T. Slack. Getting Past Burnout, Busywork, and the Myth of Total Efficiency. New York: Broadway Books, 2001.Google Scholar
López-Lería, B, Jimena, P, Clavero, A, et al. Embryologists’ health: a nationwide online questionnaire. J Assist Reprod Genet 2014; 31: 1587–97.Google Scholar
Brison, DR, Hooper, M, Critchlow, JD, et al. Reducing risk in the IVF laboratory: implementation of a double-witnessing system. Clin Risk 2004; 10: 176–80.Google Scholar
Toft, B, Mascie-Taylor, H. Involuntary automaticity: a work-system induced risk to safe health care. Health Serv Manage Res 2005; 18: 211–16.Google Scholar
de los Santos, MJ, Ruiz, A. Protocols for tracking and witnessing samples and patients in assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 2013; 100: 1499–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rienzi, L, Bariani, F, Dalla Zorza, M, et al. Failure mode and effects analysis of witnessing protocols for ensuring traceability during IVF. Reprod Biomed Online 2015; 31: 516–22.Google Scholar
Intra, G, Alteri, A, Corti, L, et al. Application of failure mode and effect analysis in an assisted reproduction technology laboratory. Reprod Biomed Online 2016; 33: 132–9.Google Scholar
Cimadomo, D, Ubaldi, FM, Capalbo, A, et al. Failure mode and effects analysis of witnessing protocols for ensuring traceability during PGD/PGS cycles. Reprod Biomed Online 2016; 33: 360–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rienzi, L, Bariani, F, Dalla Zorza, M, et al. Comprehensive protocol of traceability during IVF: the result of a multicentre failure mode and effect analysis. Hum Reprod 2017; 32: 1612–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molina, I, Gonzalvo, MC, Clavero, A, et al. Análisis modal de fallos y efectos en la fase pretécnica del Laboratorio de Reproducción. Medicina Reproductiva y Embriología Clínica 2017; 4: 128–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
H. Forte, M, Faustini, F, Maggiulli, R, et al. Electronic witness system in IVF-patients perspective. J Assist Reprod Genet 2016; 33: 1215–22.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, M, Morroll, D. Risks associated with cryopreservation: a survey of assisted conception units in the UK and Ireland. Hum Fertil 2008; 11: 33–42.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, M. Managing risk associated with cryopreservation. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 1751–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, G. Sperm cryopreservation: is there a significant risk of cross-contamination? Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 2941–3.Google Scholar
Schiewe, MC, Freeman, M, Whitney, JB, et al. Comprehensive assessment of cryogenic storage risk and quality management concerns: best practice guidelines for ART labs. J Assist Reprod Genet 2019; 36: 5–14.Google Scholar
Rinehart, LA. Storage, transport, and disposition of gametes and embryos: legal issues and practical considerations. Fertil Steril 2021; 115: 274–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennet, J. Operating a Successful Cryopreservation Facility. Sunbury-on-Thames: Planer plc, 2018.Google Scholar
British Compressed Gases Association. Code of Practice 30. The Safe Use of Liquid Nitrogen Dewars. Revision 3: 2019. Pride Park: British Compressed Gases Association, 2019. www.bcga.co.uk/pages/index.cfm?page_id=111&title=codes_of_practice_[last accessed 25 August 2021].Google Scholar
Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Reproductive Biologists and Technologists, and Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Cryostorage of reproductive tissues in the in vitro fertilization laboratory: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2020; 114: 486–91.Google Scholar
Graham, JR, Applegate, CL, Graham, SR; Tucker, MJ. Cryotank quality control: how to detect a tank that is failing. Fertil Steril 2019; 112 Suppl 3: e268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiewe, MC, Zozula, S, Behnke, EJ, et al. The anatomy of liquid nitrogen (LN2) cryo dewar tank failures. Fertil Steril 2019; 112 Suppl 3: e268–9.Google Scholar
Schiewe, MC, Zozula, S, Ochoa, T, et al. Usefulness of remote, continuous weight determination for the routine quality management of cryo dewar tanks. Fertil Steril 2019; 112 Suppl 3: e269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortimer, D. A critical assessment of the impact of the European Union Tissues and Cells Directive (2004) on laboratory practices in assisted conception. Reprod Biomed Online 2005; 11: 162–76.Google ScholarPubMed
Mortimer, D. Current and future concepts and practices in human sperm cryobanking. Reprod Biomed Online 2004; 9: 134–51.Google Scholar
Nallella, KP, Sharma, RK, Aziz, N, Agarwal, A. Significance of sperm characteristics in the evaluation of male infertility. Fertil Steril 2006; 85: 629–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Menkveld, R, et al. Semen parameters, including WHO and strict criteria morphology, in a fertile and subfertile population: an effort towards standardization of in-vivo thresholds. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 1165–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jedrzejczak, P, Taszarek-Hauke, G, Hauke, J, et al. Prediction of spontaneous conception based on semen parameters. Int J Androl 2008; 31: 499–507.Google Scholar
Menkveld, R. The basic semen analysis. In: Oehninger, S, Kruger, TF, eds. Male Infertility. London: Informa Healthcare, 2007, 141–70.Google Scholar
Jequier, AM. The importance of diagnosis in the clinical management of infertility in the male. Reprod Biomed Online 2006; 13: 331–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mortimer, D. Structured management as a basis for cost-effective infertility care. In: Gagnon, C, ed. The Male Gamete: From Basic Knowledge to Clinical Applications. Vienna, IL: Cache River Press, 1999, 363–70.Google Scholar
Mortimer, D, Mortimer, ST. The case against intracytoplasmic sperm injection for all. In: Aitken, J, Mortimer, D, Kovacs, G, eds. Male and Sperm Factors 31 that Maximize IVF Success. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.Google Scholar