The device is not under service contract; the hospital performs maintenance and repair activities on own behalf and responsibility.There was no log file made available which would cover the period in question.The hospital's biomed reported the presence of certain error codes in the logs and that the unit passed a power-on self test which was performed in follow-up of the event without any deviations.The particular error codes indicate that the device did not sense valid breaths during the course of the concerned procedure and thus, alarmed for apnea.It could not be clarified if these were the only error codes that were recorded for the period in question or not.Without the presence of secondary alarms which would point to technical error conditions, the records rather indicate that the device indeed did not stop to ventilate but that ventilation was disturbed by a large external leakage in the patient circuit.This assessment is substantiated by the fact that device passed the test in follow up of the event and did not exhibit any malfunction.However, without having the possibility to analyze the log file, the presence of a technical error condition and the validity of the reportedly observed stop of ventilation cannot be fully ruled out.Hence, this report is being filed in abundance of caution.
|