Randomized trial improves procedural performance and safety awareness in embryologists, suggesting effective training methods.
Objective: This study evaluated the effectiveness of a standardized Simultaneous, Aloud, inFormation, Electronic witnessing, Monitoring, One by one, and DocumEnt (SAFE MODE)-based training program in improving embryologists’ patient safety awareness and procedural performance, aiming to reduce the risk of gamete and embryo misidentification.Methods: This multicenter, cross-sectional pre–post survey study was conducted across six in vitro fertilization (IVF) centers within the CHA University Global IVF Group in South Korea. Ninety-nine embryologists provided valid responses, and 53.5% had less than 1 year of experience. Participants completed a 14-session online training program (40 min/session) based on the SAFE MODE framework: simultaneous checking, calling aloud together, information double-checking, electronic witnessing, visual monitoring together, one-by-one handling, and document cross-checking. A 17-item, 5-point Likert scale questionnaire was used to assess safety awareness and procedural performance. Analyses included paired and independent t-tests, Pearson correlation analysis, and multiple regression analysis (SPSS ver. 25.0).Results: Safety awareness scores increased significantly from 3.65 to 3.97 (p<0.05); procedural performance scores increased from 3.82 to 4.17 (p<0.01). Embryologists with less than 1 year of experience showed the greatest improvement, with scores increasing from 3.43 to 4.00 (p<0.05). Completion of all 14 sessions was associated with higher performance scores than mid-term training completion (4.17 vs. 3.85, p<0.01). Post-training safety awareness was positively correlated with post-training performance (r=0.215, p<0.05).Conclusion: SAFE MODE-based training was associated with significant improvements in safety awareness and procedural performance, particularly among embryologists with less than 1 year of experience. This approach may offer a practical strategy for reducing laboratory error risk and strengthening patient safety in IVF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: