P–771 I hear, I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. An Insight into the need for training for add on techniques

Abstract

\n \n \n Do embryologists need additional training or certifications before using add on techniques in the lab ?\n \n \n \n Out of 173 respondents majority feel add on techniques require training and/or certifications, the mode of training varies for different add ons.\n \n \n \n Cochrane reviews have suggested that minimal evidence exists for the use of add on treatments in ART, the data on the prevalence of add ons in IVF is unclear but the presence of technologies in ART laboratories world over suggests a increasing trend of adoption of unproven techniques. No data exists suggesting the role of embryologists in performing the Add on techniques and how their training or lack of, can impact patient safety. The most common method of training comes from the manufacturers and there is a lack of structured trainings for add on treatments worldover.\n \n \n \n An internet based survey was designed keeping in mind commonly available laboratory add ons. It comprised of 9 sections and a total of 18 multiple choice questions. Answer choices ranged from a simple yes or no to more complex choices suggesting the type of training and the potential benefits of training.\n \n \n \n The Survey includes results from 173 embryologists from india with varying degree of experience. Add ons included in the survey were Sperm DNA Fragmentation test, IMSI, PICSI, Microfluidics, MACS, Advanced culture media, Oocyte vitrification, Assisted hatching, Time Lapse imaging, spindle view and Electronic Witnessing. The most common practice suggestions were tabulated and identified.\n \n \n \n The survey reports huge need for training for different add on treatments (SDF –91.4%, IMSI - 81.2%, PICSI- 66.5%, Microfluidics- 55.9%, MACS –55.3%, MicroTese- 86.9%, using advanced culture medias{Calcium ionophore- 73.4%, Hyaluronan rich media- 52.1%, growth cytokine rich media–48.5%, Theophylline for sperm motility–50.9%},oocyte Vitrification 85.5%, Assisted Hatching 75.4%, Time-lapse and Electronic witnessing 77.3%, Polarised microscopy for spindle assessment 73.5%). The Most preferred mode of training for more invasive procedures was Hands on training, followed by On the job training and validation followed by workshops(SDF- 62.6%, IMSI- 61%,PICSI–56.1%, MACS and Microfluidics 38.8%,microTese- 50.6%,Oocyte freezing 85.5%, assisted hatching 67.8%,Time-lapse and electronic witnessing 77.3%, Spindle view 73.5% ). The most preferred mode of training for non invasive procedures was Workshops and Observerships, followed by CME’s, followed by product Leaflets(44.4%,42.1%,13.5% respectively). The most common answer for the disadvantages of not being trained was unable to use the technology to its fullest potential(88.5%), whereas the most common answer for the benefit of being trained was better outcomes with said technologies(76.6%).\n \n \n \n This study includes responses from embryologists who have varied levels of experience, while the need for training can be established based on these results, a junior level embryologist might answer the survey differently as compared to a senior or a lab director.\n Wider implications of the findings: This is a first of its kind large survey, suggesting the need for training and validation from the perspective of the embryologist. This data can be used in formulating guidelines for future trainings and can help regulators in deciding on the most preferred mode of training.\n \n \n \n -\n