Training and competency assessment of Clinical Embryologists and licensing of the profession in European countries

STUDY QUESTION: How is the acquisition and testing of theoretical and practical knowledge in Clinical Embryology and the licensing of ART laboratory personnel carried out in European countries? SUMMARY ANSWER: Twelve out of 31 European countries have established some kind of verification of laboratory competency and skills in ART: in 7 countries, this was related to licensing, but where organized education for Clinical Embryologists existed, there were vast differences in the way these processes were undertaken. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In 2015, a report by the ESHRE Embryology Certification Committee concluded that regardless of the large number of people working in IVF laboratories, Clinical Embryology was only recognized as an official profession in 3 out of 27 European national health systems. In most countries, Clinical Embryologists needed to be officially registered under an alternative profession and there were limited opportunities for organized education in this specialist field. Five years after this report, the ESHRE Working Group on Embryologist Training Analysis conducted a survey to collect detailed information about how Clinical Embryologists from different European countries are acquiring their theoretical knowledge and practical skills in ART, and how their level of education and competence in Clinical Embryology is verified. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Two questionnaires about the possibilities for acquiring the education and training needed to work in ART and verification of this knowledge were prepared by the ESHRE Working Group on Embryologist Training Analysis. The first was sent in 2020 to a panel of invited lead European Embryologists who attended an Expert Meeting held in Rome, Italy. In order to have a more comprehensive and updated picture, in 2021 the same survey was also sent to the ESHRE Committee of National Representatives (CNRs). At the end of 2021, the second survey with specific questions, more focused on Clinical Embryologists’ training and licencing, was sent to the CNRs who reported on verification of education in Clinical Embryology. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The first survey consisted of 17 questions. It was initially submitted to 14 lead Embryologists and then resubmitted to the 34 ESHRE CNRs. Representatives from 31 countries responded. A second survey with 23 questions was sent to the 12 ESHRE CNRs who reported an established national system of verification of education in Clinical Embryology, with specific questions focused on the training of Clinical Embryologists. All 12 CNRs responded. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Analysis showed that European national education programmes in Clinical Embryology could be split into 4 categories: non-existent (13 countries), recommended (5 countries), simple compulsory (9 countries), and complex compulsory (4 countries). A national document stating the minimum education requirements for staff to work in an IVF laboratory was reported by 19 respondents. The requirement to follow a prescribed theoretical and laboratory training programme in ART was compulsory in 9 and 10 countries, respectively. Some form of verification of laboratory skills, theoretical knowledge in ART, and continuing professional development was required in 12, 10, and 9 countries, respectively. A national trainee’s logbook format was reported by seven respondents and a national tutorial system was available in six countries. Only seven countries had official licensing of ART laboratory staff. The title of Clinical Embryologist was not recognized in 13 countries and in 6 countries, it was used only by professional bodies, while in 12 countries the profession was at least cited in governmental regulations. The ESHRE Clinical Embryologist Certificate was officially recognized in eight countries. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The survey took place in two steps and the results were then combined to provide a representative picture for most of the European countries sampled. The vast majority, but not all, of the CNRs answered the request to participate in the survey. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The professional recognition of Clinical Embryology within Europe is steadily evolving. However, it remains a concern that many countries continue to not recognize Clinical Embryology as a profession, with a vast difference in the reported organization of educational and training programmes and verification of skills. It is recommended that a training programme for Clinical Embryology and ART in Europe should be standardized and relevant issues should be addressed by competent authorities and European Union institutions. ESHRE is best placed to take a leading role in this educational process. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The Working Group members who are the authors of this article did not receive payments for the completion of this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.