Teaming in the contemporary fertility clinic: creating a culture to optimize patient care.

When a diverse group of individuals is working together in the contemporary fertility clinic to provide time-sensitive and complex care for patients, a high degree of coordination and collaboration must take place. When performed dynamically, this process is referred to as teaming. Although the positive impact of teamwork in health care settings has been well established in the literature, the concept of teaming has limited foundation in the clinic. This review will provide an overview of how teaming can be used to improve patient care in today's fertility clinics. Approaches to integrating teaming into the clinic that will be discussed include framing, the creation of a psychologically safe environment for staff input, and facilitating collaborative constructs to support teaming. Best practices to implement teaming and how to address challenges to teaming in today's clinical environment will also be addressed.

Fertility technologies and how to optimize laboratory performance to support the shortening of time to birth of a healthy singleton: a Delphi consensus.

PURPOSE: To explore how the assisted reproductive technology (ART) laboratories can be optimized and standardized to enhance embryo culture and selection, to bridge the gap between standard practice and the new concept of shortening time to healthy singleton birth. METHODS: A Delphi consensus was conducted (January to July 2018) to assess how the ART laboratory could be optimized, in conjunction with existing guidelines, to reduce the time to a healthy singleton birth. Eight experts plus the coordinator discussed and refined statements proposed by the coordinator. The statements were distributed via an online survey to 29 participants (including the eight experts from step 1), who voted on their agreement/disagreement with each statement. Consensus was reached if ≥ 66% of participants agreed/disagreed with a statement. If consensus was not achieved for any statement, that statement was revised and the process repeated until consensus was achieved. Details of statements achieving consensus were communicated to the participants. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved for all 13 statements, which underlined the need for professional guidelines and standardization of lab processes to increase laboratory competency and quality. The most important points identified were the improvement of embryo culture and embryo assessment to shorten time to live birth through the availability of more high-quality embryos, priority selection of the most viable embryos and improved cryosurvival. CONCLUSION: The efficiency of the ART laboratory can be improved through professional guidelines on standardized practices and optimized embryo culture environment, assessment, selection and cryopreservation methodologies, thereby reducing the time to a healthy singleton delivery.

Effect of needle diameter on pain during oocyte retrieval-a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To study pain in women undergoing oocyte retrieval with a reduced needle (20/17 gauge) compared to a standard needle (16 gauge). DESIGN: Single-center randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Fertility clinic. PATIENTS: Women undergoing their first oocyte retrieval for in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. INTERVENTIONS: Oocyte retrieval with a reduced needle (20/17 gauge) or with a standard needle (16 gauge). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was intraoperative pain on an 11-point visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary outcome measures included the following: dosage of fentanyl requested; pain at 5, 15 and 30 minutes after retrieval; and pain and analgesia until 4 days after retrieval. RESULTS: A total of 47 women were randomized for the reduced needle (RN) and 48 for the standard needle (SN). Pain scores were significantly lower during and after retrieval with the RN. During retrieval, mean VAS scores in the RN group were 4.3 versus 6.3 in the SN group. Pain remained significantly lower in the RN group after retrieval, with VAS-scores of 1.2 vs. 2.1 directly after retrieval, 0.0 versus 2.0 5 minutes after retrieval, and 0.0 versus 1.0 30 minutes after retrieval. In the RN group, three patients (6.4%) requested more fentanyl during the procedure, versus 16 (33.3%) in the SN group. A total of 79 patients submitted their follow-up questionnaire (response rate 83%). Pain on the first 2 days following retrieval was significantly less in the RN group, with VAS scores of 1.6 versus 2.4 in the SN group, and 1.2 versus 2.5. In line with this finding, fewer patients in the RN group took analgesia on the days after the procedure. This difference was statistically significant only on day 3. CONCLUSION: Use of a thinner needle results in significantly and clinically relevant lower pain scores during oocyte retrieval, and patients in the reduced needle group requested significantly less analgesia during oocyte retrieval than patients in the standard needle group. Pain scores remained significantly lower up until 2 days after the procedure. DUTCH TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR6064 (www.trialregister.nl).

Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study.

STUDY QUESTION: Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified? SUMMARY ANSWER: The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction, and ethics, access, and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management, and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines, and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction, and ethics, access, and organization of care. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems, and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties were entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities, and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI, and IVF), and ethics, access, and organization of care, were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment, and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings, and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research, and population science. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgement, and arbitrary consensus definitions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems, and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda. STUDY FUNDING/ COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Geoffrey Adamson reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies, and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. Andrew Horne reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist's Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from Abbvie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma, and Roche Diagnostics. M. Louise Hull reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. Neil Johnson reports research sponsorship from Abb-Vie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics, and Vifor Pharma. José Knijnenburg reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Craig Niederberger reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. Jane Stewart reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring, and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Jack Wilkinson reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. Andy Vail reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from HFEA for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. Lan Vuong reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Patient-centered care: factors associated with reporting a positive experience at United States fertility clinics.

OBJECTIVE: To determine factors associated with a positive patient experience (PPE) at fertility clinics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Female respondents to the FertilityIQ questionnaire (www.fertilityiq.com) reviewing the first or only U.S. clinic visited from July 2015 to July 2018. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): PPE was defined as a score of 9 or 10 out of 10 on the question, "Would you recommend this fertility clinic to a best friend?" Examined predictors included demographics, payment details, infertility diagnoses and treatment, physician traits, and clinic operations and resources. Multiple imputation was used for missing variables. Logistic regression was used to calculate adjusted odds ratios for factors associated with PPE. RESULT(S): Of the 7,456 women included, 63.1% reported PPE. Pregnancy resulting from treatment was a predictor of PPE. In multivariable analysis, the strongest predictors of PPE were related to the patient-physician relationship ("feeling treated like a human rather than a number" and having a doctor with good communication skills and who set reasonable expectations). Multiple clinic-related factors were also independently associated with PPE, including satisfaction with billing, shorter wait times, and easy appointment scheduling. CONCLUSION(S): While pregnancy influences patients' views of their fertility clinic experience, there are other modifiable patient, physician, and clinic factors associated with PPE. Clinics may be able to optimize patient experience and improve the quality of care that they provide by being cognizant of such factors.