Discover how Time-Lapse incubation is transforming embryo culture, helping IVF labs make smarter decisions, optimise workflows, and improve clinical outcomes.

The post Transforming Embryo Culture: Insights and Innovations with the GERI Incubator appeared first on Genea Biomedx.

Table of Contents

1. What Is Electronic Witnessing in IVF? 
2. Why IVF Sample Traceability Can’t Be Left to Chance 
3. Manual Witnessing vs Electronic Witnessing
4. RFID vs QR Codes: Which IVF Witnessing Workflow Fits Your Lab?
5. Guardian: Flexible Electronic Witnessing for IVF Labs
6. Implementation Without Disruption
7. Supporting Laboratory Efficiency Without Replacing Embryologists
8. What’s Next for IVF Traceability and Connected Labs?
9. Key Takeaways
10. References

 A single mislabelled sample in an IVF laboratory can mean the wrong embryo is transferred to the wrong patient. Although such events are uncommon, they have occurred and can have serious clinical, legal and emotional consequences. The UK fertility regulator publishes adverse-incident data and requires robust witnessing and traceability procedures for licensed clinics; these requirements are detailed, as outlined in the HFEA Code of Practice guidance Section 18: Witnessing and assuring patient and donor identification. ^[1] 

In modern IVF laboratories precision extends far beyond embryo culture techniques. Every patient sample whether oocytes, sperm, embryos or cryopreserved specimens must be correctly identified at every stage of treatment. There is no margin for ambiguity. 

As laboratories digitise their workflows, electronic witnessing in IVF has become essential for quality management. These systems help embryologists verify patient identity during critical procedures, strengthen the digital audit trail, support regulatory compliance and significantly reduce the risk of human error. 

If you are establishing a new laboratory or modernising existing protocols, electronic witnessing is now a key technology for safeguarding patients while improving operational efficiency. 

What Is Electronic Witnessing in IVF? 

Electronic witnessing is a digital identification system that confirms patient samples are correctly matched throughout the IVF process. 

Instead of relying solely on manual double witnessing, electronic witnessing uses technologies such as RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) or QR codes to automatically verify that the correct gametes, embryos and patient materials are being handled during every critical laboratory procedure. 

These identification checks occur during key stages across the full treatment cycle: 

• Oocyte collection 
• Sperm preparation 
• Fertilisation (IVF or ICSI) 
• Embryo culture 
• Embryo transfer 
• Cryopreservation 
• Thawing procedures 

Every verification is automatically recorded, creating a complete digital audit trail that supports laboratory documentation, accreditation reviews and quality assurance. 

Why IVF Sample Traceability Can’t Be Left to Chance 

Patient and sample identification is one of the most important responsibilities within any embryology laboratory. 

Evidence from Sterckx et al. (2023) in a study published in Human Reproduction journal^[2], which analysed 849,650 electronic witnessing points across 109,655 medically assisted reproduction cycles, found 144 critical mismatches, with sperm preparation and IVF/ICSI among the procedures most prone to mismatch. While the overall mismatch rate may appear low, each critical mismatch represents a potentially serious event that, if undetected, could have unacceptable consequences for patients and families. A separate analysis by Forbrig et al. (2025) in a study published in Reproductive BioMedicine Online^[3], covering 73,719 electronic witnessing points across 11,210 ART cycles, also reported low overall mismatch rates while identifying workflow, time of day and staffing as key risk factors. 

Unlike many other medical specialties, IVF laboratories routinely handle multiple patients’ biological samples simultaneously. Maintaining an unbroken chain of custody throughout treatment is fundamental to ensuring every embryo remains linked to the correct patient. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) mandates strict traceability requirements for licensed clinics in the UK. Meanwhile, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) notes that a number of key misidentification risk points occur during an IVF cycle that require robust witnessing protocols, detailed in their 2026 publication^[4]. European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) similarly emphasises sample identification as a cornerstone of laboratory quality management in its 2026 recommendations^[5]. 

Electronic witnessing systems help laboratories in five core areas: 

Electronic witnessing does not replace embryologists. It acts as an additional safeguard, ensuring established protocols are followed consistently, even during high-pressure periods or peak laboratory schedules

Manual Witnessing vs Electronic Witnessing 

Traditional manual witnessing requires a second embryologist or trained staff member to verify patient identity before each critical procedure. 

This remains an established practice, but it has limitations. Manual witnessing relies on staff availability, consistent documentation and direct human observation, which can be difficult to maintain during busy laboratory schedules or high-volume periods. Failure mode and effects analysis of witnessing protocols has shown that manual systems are particularly vulnerable to workflow complexity and time pressure. 

Electronic witnessing introduces an additional layer of protection by automatically checking patient identifiers before procedures can continue and removing the dependency on a second person being physically present. 

Many laboratories now combine manual expertise with electronic verification. This partnership strengthens quality management while preserving the essential role of experienced embryologists. It can also reassure patients: a patient-perspective study on electronic witnessing in IVF by Forte and colleagues shows how electronic witnessing can address concerns associated with sample mix-ups, and that electronic systems can alleviate these challenges by mitigating sample mismatch risk. Specifically, they found that initially 90.4 percent of patients expressed significant concerns about sample mix-ups, but an electronic witnessing system reduced those concerns for 92.1 percent of patients^[6].

RFID vs QR Codes: Which IVF Witnessing Workflow Fits Your Lab? 

Not every IVF laboratory operates in the same way, and witnessing technology should adapt to your workflow rather than the other way around. 

Some clinics prefer RFID technology for fully automated, hands-free identification. Others favour QR codes because they integrate easily into existing workflows and require minimal infrastructure changes. Increasingly, laboratories want the option to use both, depending on the procedure or stage. 

Here is a practical comparison: 

Modern electronic witnessing systems increasingly offer both options within a single platform. This flexibility allows laboratories to choose or combine the identification method that best suits their layout, volume and operational requirements, without committing to a single technology.

Guardian: Flexible Electronic Witnessing for IVF Labs 

One of the most common frustrations embryologists express about laboratory technology is rigidity. Systems often force a single workflow regardless of how the lab actually operates. 

Genea Biomedx’s Guardian electronic witnessing system was designed to address exactly that problem. It gives laboratories the flexibility to use RFID technology, QR codes or a combination of both, customised to individual protocols rather than imposed by the hardware. 

Here is how Guardian addresses the day-to-day realities of an IVF laboratory: 

Because the handheld PDA reads both RFID and QR code labels, witnessing can take place wherever procedures occur. This supports mobility without compromising the digital audit trail. 

The system integrates into existing laboratory environments with minimal disruption while helping clinics maintain consistent identification practices. 

Implementation Without Disruption

A common concern when adopting new laboratory technology is integration complexity. Genea Biomedx Guardian electronic witnessing system is designed to work alongside existing laboratory environments, offering RFID and QR code workflows, portable PDA scanning, compact hardware and seamless implementation without requiring wholesale workflow changes. It is also designed to work alongside your existing Laboratory Information Management System and compatible cryostorage solutions. ^[5] 

Here is what a typical implementation looks like: 

1. Assessment. A review of your current workflows, LIMS setup and laboratory layout to identify integration points. 

2. Hardware placement. Compact readers and PDAs are positioned at relevant workstations. No bench reconfiguration is required. 

3. LIMS integration. Guardian connects to your existing LIMS and cryostorage systems so data flows seamlessly. 

4. Staff training. Hands-on training sessions for embryologists and laboratory staff supported by an intuitive interface that reduces the learning curve. 

5. Go-live. Clinics typically begin witnessing procedures immediately after training with support available during the initial transition period. 

Most clinics complete the full implementation within a short timeframe and begin witnessing procedures without pausing daily operations.

Supporting Laboratory Efficiency Without Replacing Embryologists 

As IVF laboratories continue adopting digital technologies, electronic witnessing plays an increasingly important role in laboratory quality management. 

Technology should not be viewed as replacing the expertise of embryologists, though. Electronic witnessing supports laboratory professionals by automating routine identification checks, reducing administrative burden and creating comprehensive documentation. Embryologists remain responsible for clinical decision-making, laboratory procedures and patient care. 

The goal is straightforward. Let embryologists focus on the work that requires their expertise while the system handles the verification and record-keeping that must happen alongside it. 

This partnership between experienced professionals and digital technologies helps create safer and more efficient laboratory workflows.

What’s Next for IVF Traceability and Connected Labs? 

Digital transformation is reshaping every aspect of assisted reproductive technology and witnessing is no exception. 

Several trends are shaping the next generation of IVF traceability: 

• Connected laboratory ecosystems. Electronic witnessing systems are increasingly integrated with LIMS, incubators, cryostorage solutions and time-lapse imaging platforms to create a unified digital environment. Siloed data is becoming a thing of the past. 

• AI-assisted embryo selection. As AI tools for embryo grading mature, identification and traceability data may increasingly be linked across connected laboratory systems, helping maintain a verifiable digital thread from embryo identification through transfer. 

• Immutable audit logs. Blockchain-inspired, tamper-evident record-keeping is being explored to create audit trails that cannot be altered retroactively, raising the bar for regulatory confidence. 

• Higher accreditation standards. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) and other accreditation bodies continue to raise expectations for reproductive laboratory documentation making digital traceability not just beneficial but increasingly expected. 

As these technologies evolve, comprehensive sample tracking will become even more important. Laboratories will improve quality management, streamline workflows and strengthen patient confidence through transparent verifiable processes.

Key Takeaways 

• Electronic witnessing automates patient-sample verification at every critical IVF stage, reducing the risk of identification errors. 

• Both RFID and QR code technologies are viable. The best choice depends on your lab’s volume, layout and workflow preferences. 

• Systems like Guardian support both methods, allowing labs to customise without disrupting existing procedures. 

• Implementation can be completed quickly alongside your current LIMS with minimal infrastructure changes. 

• Digital traceability is becoming increasingly important as laboratories strengthen quality management, accreditation readiness and compliance with applicable requirements, supported by guidance such as the ESHRE recommendations on Good Practice in the IVF laboratory.^[6] 

References 

1. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Code of Practice. Section 18: Witnessing and assuring patient and donor identification.

2. Sterckx J, Wouters K, Mateizel I, Segers I, De Vos A, Van Landuyt L, Van de Velde H, Tournaye H, De Munck N. Electronic witnessing in the medically assisted reproduction laboratory: insights and considerations after 10 years of use. Hum Reprod. 2023 Aug 1;38(8):1529-1537. doi:10.1093/humrep/dead115.

3. Forbrig M, Peirce K, Copeland C, Natalwala J, Chapple V, Liu Y. Risk factors for mismatches in the ART laboratory: an analysis of 73,719 electronic witnessing points. Reprod Biomed Online. 2025 May;50(5):104500. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2024.104500.
4. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Practice Committee of the Society of Reproductive Biologists and Technologists. Witnessing and protocol deviations in the in vitro fertilization and andrology laboratory: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2026 Jul;126(1):38-48. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2026.03.014.
5. ESHRE Good Practice in the IVF Lab Working Group, Arroyo G, Barrie A, Coticchio G, Ebner T, Kirkman-Brown J, Le Clef N, Lundin K, Magli C, Quesada Martinez M, de los Santos Molina MJ, Tilleman K, Sfontouris I. ESHRE recommendations on Good Practice in the IVF laboratory. Hum Reprod. 2026 Aug;41(8):1245-1269. doi:10.1093/humrep/deag096.
6. Forte M, Faustini F, Maggiulli R, Scarica C, Romano S, Ottolini C, Farcomeni A, Palagiano A, Capalbo A, Ubaldi FM, Rienzi L. Electronic witness system in IVF-patients perspective. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 Sep;33(9):1215-1222. doi:10.1007/s10815-016-0759-4.

The post Electronic Witnessing in IVF: Why Traceability Matters Now  appeared first on Genea Biomedx.

Table of Contents

1. What the guidelines actually ask for
2. The quiet cost of the conventional workaround 
3. What to look for in a platform
4. A short audit before your next infectious case
5. Why Geri for infectious workflows 
6. The same standard, for every patient 
7. References 

Every IVF laboratory has some version of this. A conventional incubator in a side room. A slot at the end of the day that the whole team quietly respects. A little extra ceremony around disinfection when a certain case comes through. These workarounds exist for the right reasons, because safety demands separation and the published guidelines back it up. 

The part worth questioning is not the separation. It is everything the separation drags along with it. 

Patients living with HIV, hepatitis B or hepatitis C can be, and routinely are, treated safely in IVF programmes. What should not be accepted as inevitable is that those patients also leave your lab without the things the rest of your patients take for granted: continuous time-lapse monitoring, a humidified culture environment and an incubation platform your team knows inside out. 

Separation is a safety decision. The compromise that usually arrives with it is a design decision. And design decisions can be made differently.

What the guidelines actually ask for

Read the major recommendations side by side, and a clear picture emerges. They agree far more than they differ, and none of them asks a laboratory to downgrade care for infectious patients. 

Jindal and colleagues put it most practically. In their 2016 review on risk reduction in assisted reproduction, they recommend isolating the patient in time, by placing them at the end of the daily workflow, and in space, by considering a separate incubator for culture. Note the word separate. Not a shared chamber with a protocol taped to the door. 

The 2021 ESHRE guideline on medically assisted reproduction in patients with a viral infection takes a broader, risk-based view: separate storage of reproductive cells according to viral status, careful separation of environments and rigorous decontamination between cases. 

And the older but still useful review by Steyaert and colleagues sets the floor everything else stands on: universal precautions, sterile technique and segregated storage, for every patient, every day. 

The common thread is that separation is the standard of care, not an extra for the cautious. What none of these documents does is tell you which incubator to buy. That gap is where the conventional workaround sneaks in, and where its costs accumulate. 

The quiet cost of the conventional workaround 

Move an infectious case to a conventional incubator, and the cycle loses its time-lapse record. Embryos get assessed only when someone opens a lid, which is exactly the disturbance time-lapse was invented to remove. The morphokinetic information your lab uses to counsel every other patient simply does not exist for this one. 

The culture environment may change too. GEMS media can be used successfully in dry incubators when dishes are prepared and handled appropriately, and many laboratories do exactly that. But because evaporation can increase osmolality, humidified incubation offers an added layer of control by helping minimisemay drift during culture. 

Then there is the operational tax. A second platform means a second training path, a second set of procedures and a second quality-control trail. Laboratories end up carrying permanent overhead for the patients who arrive least often. 

None of this is written in any guideline. It is simply what happens when the incubation hardware was never designed with these patients in mind. 

What to look for in a platform

Once you accept that separation is non-negotiable, the selection criteria almost write themselves. The interesting question is whether one single platform can meet them for standard and infectious workflows alike. 

One honest caveat belongs here. No incubator is a biosafety device, and none of this replaces your protocols. What a well-designed platform does is give your standard operating procedures the physical environments they ask for, while local regulation and your quality system keep defining how infectious cases are handled in your lab. 

A short audit before your next infectious case

If several answers come back as no, the limiting factor is probably not your team or your procedures. It is the hardware. 

Why Geri for infectious workflows 

Geri was developed around a clear principle: spatial separation should never come at the expense of clinical standards. Where conventional approaches force a laboratory to relocate infectious cases to a separate system, Geri integrates separation directly into its design, so isolating a patient in space becomes a native capability rather than an added workaround. This alignment with published recommendations means your laboratory can meet the guidelines’ requirements for time and space separation without downgrading the care those patients receive. 

The result is a laboratory that must no longer treat infectious cycles as an exception. Your patients receive the same consistent standard of care regardless of what is recorded in their chart, and your laboratory removes a compromise that was never required in the first place. Geri does not replace your standard operating procedures, but it removes the hardware limitation that has traditionally forced that compromise.

The same standard, for every patient 

There is a simple sentence that should hold true in any laboratory: the standard of care does not depend on the patient’s chart. Getting there is mostly a matter of choosing equipment that adapts to your protocols, instead of forcing your protocols to adapt to the equipment. 

References 

1. Jindal SK, Rawlins RG, Muller CH, Drobnis EZ. Guidelines for risk reduction when handling gametes from infectious patients seeking assisted reproductive technologies. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016;33(2):121-130. 

2. ESHRE Guideline Group on Viral infection/disease. ESHRE guideline: medically assisted reproduction in patients with a viral infection/disease. Hum Reprod Open. 2021;2021(4):hoab037. 

3. Steyaert SR, Leroux-Roels GG, Dhont M. Infections in IVF: review and guidelines. Hum Reprod Update. 2000;6(5):432-441. 

The post Infectious patients in the IVF lab: keeping time-lapse in every workflow  appeared first on Genea Biomedx.

Discover how label-free metabolic imaging and artificial intelligence guide embryologists to objective viability insights and standardise embryo ranking.

The post Beyond Morphology: From Gamete Metabolism to AI-Enabled Embryo Assessment appeared first on Genea Biomedx.

Advancing Embryo Selection with Automated Embryo Assessment: Geri Assess® 2.0

Discover how AI-driven automated embryo assessment software guides embryologists to key milestones and standardizes embryo ranking.

The post Advancing Embryo Selection with Automated Embryo Assessment: Geri Assess® 2.0 appeared first on Genea Biomedx.

Selecting the best IVF equipment, particularly the embryo culture incubator, is one of the most important decisions a clinic makes when designing or upgrading a lab. With rapid changes in culture systems, modern IVF incubators, and integrated workflow tools, the goal is no longer just about maintaining stable conditions. Today, labs need to create a high-performance environment that reduces stress on embryos and increases implantation potential.

Below, we outline the main categories of equipment and explore what to consider when picking solutions that support a modern IVF workflow.

Culture Systems: Prioritizing Stability, Flexibility, and Workflow Integration

A reliable culture system allows clinics to maintain steady environmental control from oocyte retrieval through blastocyst development. Consistent temperature, pH, and a low-oxygen gas environment remain essential. Systematic reviews link low-oxygen embryo culture to improved IVF success rates. Leading labs also focus on modularity and reducing dish handling.

When looking at culture systems, embryologists usually look for:

• Minimal lid-opening events
• Small, independent culture chambers
• Flexibility to support both standard and time-lapse culture
• Compatibility with validated media systems and dish formats (our guide on validating new media in your lab covers how to assess this in practice)

The Geri® system from Genea Biomedx, especially when used with the GEMS® culture media suite, shows this modern approach. It is built around workflow logic to lower variability while keeping daily handling simple for embryologists.

Benchtop Embryo Culture Incubators: Why Mini Chambers Are the Standard

Large box incubators are no longer the only standard in the IVF lab. Today, the preferred embryo culture incubator is often a benchtop model. These feature small-volume chambers that offer quick recovery and limit cross-patient interference. Research on benchtop incubators with lowered oxygen highlights why fast-recovering, stable micro-environments matter for fertilization and embryo development.

Key benefits of modern benchtop IVF incubators include:

• Faster temperature and gas recovery after opening
• Lower risk of cross-contamination
• Individual micro-environments for each patient
• Better workflow efficiency in a busy lab

Whether a clinic chooses a compact benchtop system or a more advanced platform, the main priority must be keeping the environment stable during busy hours. This is especially important for high-volume labs.

Multi-Room Incubators: Scaling Without Compromise

A multiroom incubator fills the gap between large box incubators and single-patient benchtop models. It offers multiple isolated chambers within one machine. This design gives embryologists the flexibility to work on individual patients without exposing others to temperature or gas changes.

Clinics should consider a multi-room system if their lab:

• Handles a high patient volume
• Needs backup chambers for risk management
• Wants a standardized, highly controlled environment across multiple modules

The Geri® incubator from Genea Biomedx is a clear example of this concept. Each patient gets their own completely isolated chamber, which cuts down on disturbance while supporting individualized culture. For a real-world example, you can read how Instituto Bernabeu transformed its embryology lab with Geri.

Time-Lapse Incubators: Insight Without Interruption

Time-lapse incubators have changed modern embryology. They do more than provide continuous imaging. They remove the need to take embryos out of their optimal culture environment for observation. Sibling-oocyte studies report improved blastocyst development and euploidy rates with time-lapse incubators, and ongoing systematic reviews continue to evaluate their role in embryo incubation and assessment. When paired with advanced assessment tools, including validated algorithms and AI solutions (as discussed in our article on the incorporation of AI into IVF), time-lapse systems help make embryo assessment more objective.

When looking at a time-lapse platform, clinics should check:

• Image quality, frame rate, and capture interval
• Number and adjustability of focal planes
• Chamber design (are the embryos for each patient truly isolated?)
• Culture conditions like dry, humid, or both (learn why incubator humidity really matters for IVF outcomes)
• Integrated morphokinetic and annotation tools
• Data storage, export, and reporting options
• AI compatibility (whether it is tied to one system or flexible enough to work with different options)
• Ease of use during busy clinical cycles

The Geri® time-lapse incubator is a patient-focused device that combines uninterrupted culture with real-time imaging inside six fully independent micro-environments.

Matching Equipment to Your Laboratory Goals

When investing in new technology, embryologists and clinic directors need to match equipment choices with lab goals:

• To improve embryo culture stability: Choose multi-chamber IVF incubators and low-disturbance culture systems.
• To scale up or standardize a larger clinic: A modular multiroom incubator allows for predictable growth with consistent operations.
• To improve selection accuracy and documentation: A time-lapse incubator provides deeper real-time insights without changing culture conditions.
• To streamline workflows: Systems like Genea Biomedx’s Geri for incubation and GEMS for media lower variability and make daily tasks easier.

Final Thoughts

Picking the right embryo culture incubator and IVF equipment goes beyond comparing specifications. It involves matching technology to your lab’s workflow and patient load. Whether you are looking at culture systems, upgrading IVF incubators, or moving to time-lapse technology, the best solutions consistently support stable and patient-specific embryo care. You can explore Genea Biomedx’s full range of IVF and embryology lab solutions to see how these systems work together.

The post Choosing the Right Embryo Culture Incubator: A Guide for Modern IVF Labs appeared first on Genea Biomedx.

The Importance of an Interconnected Ecosystem in Today’s Modern Lab with Peter Svalander MD, HCLD

Discover how Genea Biomedx is creating a connected, intelligent system designed to transform IVF labs!

The post The Importance of an Interconnected Ecosystem in Today’s Modern Lab with Peter Svalander appeared first on Genea Biomedx.

Geri®

The world’s first humidified time-lapse incubator.

Discover Product

Guardian

Guardian is an electronic witnessing system using both types of identification label technologies, RFID chips and QR codes, designed as a simplified sample traceability system for patients and IVF clinics.

Discover Product

Geri® Connect & Assess

Streamlining lab operations and enhancing patient communication.

Discover Product

Gems®

A next-generation culture media formula developed by embryologists, enriched with antioxidants.

Discover Product

Gidget®

An easy-to-use electronic witnessing system designed to aid sample identification and tracking during ART procedures, while minimising the chance of human error. 

Discover Product

The post Embryology Solution appeared first on Genea Biomedx.

[contact-form-7]

The post US event leads appeared first on Genea Biomedx.