Defining the typical work environment for assisted reproductive technology laboratories in the United States

被引:4
|
作者
Boone, WR [1 ]
Higdon, HL [1 ]
机构
[1] Greenville Hosp Syst, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, ART & Androl Labs, Greenville, SC 29605 USA
关键词
assisted reproductive technology; ART; laboratory personnel; staffing requirements; time requirements;
D O I
10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.03.038
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objective: To determine time and staffing requirements as they relate to laboratory personnel in the field of assisted reproductive technology (ART). Design: Descriptive study. Setting: Assisted reproductive technology clinics in the United States. Personnel:. All personnel working in ART laboratories, which included laboratory directors and technicians (those laboratory personnel trained in specific areas of embryology, andrology, and endocrinology). Intervention(s): None. Main Outcome Measures(s): Frequencies were determined for time and staffing requirements as they pertained to individuals and procedures (e.g., oocyte retrieval, embryo transfer, semen analysis, hormone assay, etc.) performed in embryology, andrology, and endocrine laboratories. Result(s): Two different surveys of ART clinics in the United States were combined in this report. The average technician worked 40 hours a week, whereas the average laboratory director worked 49 hours per week. The average embryologist performed 181 procedures (not cases) per year. The average andrologist performed 648 procedures (not cases) per year, while the average endocrinologist completed 2,673 procedures (not cases) per year. Conclusion(s): This is the first report to describe time and staffing requirements as they relate to the laboratory personnel in an ART facility.
引用
收藏
页码:618 / 626
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] FRANCE AND THE UNITED STATES: THE LEGAL AND ETHICAL DIFFERENCES IN ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY (ART)
    McGregor, J.
    Dreifuss-Netter, F.
    MEDICINE AND LAW, 2007, 26 (01): : 117 - 135
  • [44] Regulation of assisted reproductive technologies in the United States
    Adamson, D
    FAMILY LAW QUARTERLY, 2005, 39 (03) : 727 - 744
  • [45] Regulation of assisted reproductive technologies in the United States
    Adamson, D
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2002, 78 (05) : 932 - 942
  • [46] Assessing the use of assisted reproductive technology in the United States by non-US residents
    Kissin, D.
    Levine, A.
    Boulet, S.
    Berry, R.
    Jamieson, D.
    Alberta, H.
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2016, 31 : 285 - 286
  • [47] Spontaneous abortion among pregnancies conceived using assisted reproductive technology in the United States
    Schieve, LA
    Tatham, L
    Peterson, HB
    Toner, J
    Jeng, G
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2003, 101 (05): : 959 - 967
  • [48] Endometriosis and Assisted Reproductive Technology: United States Trends and Outcomes 2000-2011
    Kawwass, Jennifer F.
    Crawford, Sara
    Session, Donna R.
    Kissin, Dmitry M.
    Jamieson, Denise J.
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2015, 103 (06) : 1537 - 1543
  • [49] Disparities in Assisted Reproductive Technology Utilization by Race and Ethnicity, United States, 2014: A Commentary
    Dieke, Ada C.
    Zhang, Yujia
    Kissin, Dmitry M.
    Barfield, Wanda D.
    Boulet, Sheree L.
    JOURNAL OF WOMENS HEALTH, 2017, 26 (06) : 605 - 608
  • [50] Progression of depression and anxiety symptoms in pregnancies conceived by assisted reproductive technology in the United States
    Simoni, Michael K.
    Gilstad-Hayden, Kathryn
    Naqvi, Syed H.
    Pal, Lubna
    Yonkers, Kimberly Ann
    JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOMATIC OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2022, 43 (02) : 214 - 223