Evaluation of the Key Performance Indicators of the In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) Program at the Permata Hati Clinic, Dr. Sardjito in 2019-2020


Bayu Rizky Prabowo(1*), Shofwal Widad(2), Addin Trirahmanto(3)

(1) Obstetric dan Gynecology Department Faculty of Medicine, Public Health, and Nursing Gadjah Mada University Dr. Sardjito Central General Hospital Yogyakarta
(2) Obstetric dan Gynecology Department Faculty of Medicine, Public Health, and Nursing Gadjah Mada University Dr. Sardjito Central General Hospital Yogyakarta
(3) Obstetric dan Gynecology Department Faculty of Medicine, Public Health, and Nursing Gadjah Mada University Dr. Sardjito Central General Hospital Yogyakarta
(*) Corresponding Author


Background: One of the efforts that can be done to overcome infertility is In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) or the IVF process is a process in which the egg is fertilized by sperm outside the body. Where in the In Vitro Fertilization effort, hormone stimulation is carried out, in principle, is an effort to add a number of hormones from the outside (exogenous hormone) which functions as control of the reproductive process, so that the reproductive cycle can be accelerated or can be carried out outside its natural environment. Given the many risks that arise, a measurement is needed to determine the success rate of the IVF program itself. Research Performance indicator or key performance indicator (KPI) is a type of performance measurement of any process, whether in biomedical or non-biomedical fields, may be subject to inherent deviations from the optimum limit or from the set limit.

Objective: Conduct an evaluation with Key Performance Indicators on In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) patients at the Permata Hati Clinic, Dr. Sardjito.

Method: This research is a descriptive observation because the researcher only observes without treating the object to be studied. This research was conducted at Dr. RSUP. Sardjito because RSUP Dr. Sardjito owns the Permata Hati infertility clinic, which provides patients with IVF (in vitro fertilization or IVF) procedures. Data collection was carried out especially in the medical record section which was carried out in January 2019 - January 2020.

Results and Discussion: The variables of ICSI damage level, normal ICSI fertilization rate, normal IVF success rate, IVF fertilization failure rate, blastocyst cryosurvival rate, and implantation level (cleavage stage) have not been able to meet the key performance indicators. , and the implantation rate (blastocyst stage) met the key performance indicators

Conclusion: Permata Hati Clinic Performance RSUP Dr. Sardjito is still under competency and aspirational performance based on key performance indicators.


Keywords: Key Performace Indicator; In Vitro Fertilization; Assisted reproductive technique




key performance indicator, IVF, assisted reproductive technique

Full Text:



  1. Abdalla, H. I., Bhattacharya, S. and Khalaf, Y. (2010) ‘Is meaningful reporting of national IVF outcome data possible?’, Human Reproduction, 25(1), pp. 9–13. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dep357.
  2. Bennett, L. R. et al. (2012) ‘Indonesian infertility patients’ health seeking behaviour and patterns of access to biomedical infertility care: An interviewer administered survey conducted in three clinics’, Reproductive Health. BioMed Central, p. 24. doi: 10.1186/1742-4755-9-24.
  3. Fabozzi, G. et al. (2020) ‘Which key performance indicators are most effective in evaluating and managing an in vitro fertilization laboratory?’, Fertility and Sterility, 114(1), pp. 9–15. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.04.054.
  4. Harzif, A. K., Santawi, V. P. A. and Wijaya, S. (2019) ‘Discrepancy in perception of infertility and attitude towards treatment options: Indonesian urban and rural area’, Reproductive Health. BioMed Central Ltd., 16(1), p. 126. doi: 10.1186/s12978-019-0792-8.
  5. Papathanasiou, A. and Bhattacharya, S. (2015) ‘Prognostic factors for IVF success: Diagnostic testing and evidence-based interventions’, Seminars in Reproductive Medicine, 33(2), pp. 65–76. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1545364.
  6. Riskesdas (2013) ‘Laporan Nasional 2013 Riset Kesehatan Dasar’. Jakarta: Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Kesehatan, Departemen Kesehatan, Republik Indonesia.
  7. Scott, R. T. and Ziegler, D. de (2020) ‘Introduction: Key performance indicators in assisted reproductive technologies’, Fertility and Sterility, 114(1), pp. 4–5. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.04.057.
  8. Lee, S. C., Ezzati, M. and Gvakharia, M. (2021) ‘ANALYSIS OF THE IVF LABORATORY KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (KPIs) IN IVF PATIENTS WITH DIFFERENT OVULATION TRIGGER REGIMENS’, Fertility and Sterility, 116(3), p. e134. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.07.372.
  9. Lopez-Regalado, M. L. et al. (2018) ‘Critical appraisal of the Vienna consensus: performance indicators for assisted reproductive technology laboratories’, Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 37(2), pp. 128–132. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.05.009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jkr.71952

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 939 | views : 664


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2022 The Author(s)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Jurnal Kesehatan Reproduksi Indexed by:



Departemen Obstetri dan Ginekologi, FK-KMK, UGM/RS Dr. Sardjito
Jl. Kesehatan No. 1, Sekip Utara, Yogyakarta 55281
Tlp: (0274) 511329 / Faks: (0274) 544003
Email: jurnal.kesehatanreproduksi@ugm.ac.id
Cp: Dwi Astuti +6281802698043