International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis 2022 DEBATE: There should be formal accreditation and ongoing quality assurance/review for units offering fetal therapy that includes public reporting of outcomes

The field of fetal therapy has so far escaped from formal accreditation and quality control. Despite that, current published evidence shows that outcomes of interventions in younger fetal therapy centers are similar to what is achieved in more experienced centers and outcomes of interventions have improved over time. The question however remains what is not being published and what should be the standard of care, given the lack of level 1 evidence from randomized controlled trials for many interventions. Formal collaborative networks such as NAFTnet and others allow for anonymized benchmarking of center outcomes, without publicly shaming (and financially punishing) underperforming centers. Large registries also allow for tracking of rare complications and may result in improved patient outcomes over time. Core outcome sets, which could serve as a basis for outcome reporting, are available for some conditions, but certainly not for all, resulting in communication difficulties between centers. Formal accreditation, quality control, and outcome reporting are hard to implement, expensive, and may result in decreasing access to care by pushing smaller centers out of the market. Despite the existing difficulties, international societies have committed to quality improvement, and fetal therapy programs are strongly recommended to participate in voluntary outcome tracking.

Automated summary

The field of fetal therapy lacks formal accreditation and quality control, but published evidence suggests that outcomes in younger centers are comparable to more experienced ones and interventions have improved over time. Publication bias and lack of randomized controlled trials pose challenges in setting standards of care. Collaborative networks and large registries help benchmark center outcomes and track rare complications, aiding in improving patient outcomes. Formal accreditation, quality control, and outcome reporting are difficult and costly to implement and may limit access to care for smaller centers.