Investigation: x-review dhr: x-inspect returned samples.Analysis and findings: distribution history: the complaint product was coated at a supplier in november 2017 under work order (b)(4), was packaged at csi in may 2018 under (b)(4) and sold on 9/1/20.Manufacturing record review (b)(4) were reviewed and no non-conformities, related to the complaint condition, were noted.Incoming inspection review: iqc record- (b)(4) was reviewed and no non-conformities, related to the complaint condition, were noted.Service history record: service history not applicable for this product.Historical complaint review: a review of the 2-year complaint history did not show similar reported complaint conditions.Product receipt: the complaint product (1 piece of leep auvard speculum) was returned without the box on 10/5/20.The lot number of the returned product matched the lot number reported.Visual evaluation: visual examination of the complaint product revealed a nick mark on the coating of the instrument.Functional evaluation: complaint product was functionally evaluated per a dielectric test (hi-pot) and found not to function properly at the nick mark.Root cause: while no definitive root cause could be reliably determined, the potential cause may be due to mishandling of instrument after leaving the csi facility which led to the damage of the protective coating.It should be noted that the coating supplier 100% functionally test each instrument using a hi-pot tester.Also, csi performs an aql sampling functional hi-pot test on each shipment for this part.Correction and/or corrective action: coopersurgical will continue to monitor this complaint condition for trends.Preventative action activity: coopersurgical will continue to monitor this complaint condition for trends.
|