Udi: (b)(4) the facility reported the meter scanned a patient barcode and registered the scan as a different patient.The initial reporter stated this happened on several different days but was unsure of which meters were used producing the errouneous results.A device history record (dhr) review for the meters indicated was performed.This included an assessment of the production, testing, and release of the products.No abnormalities or concerns were observed; the dhrs indicated the released products met all specifications.With the assistance of nova, it was determined the mis-scans were caused by poor barcode quality which was not a result of or related to the meters in question.This was determined using webscan trucheck barcode verification graders and ten different barcodes.All barcodes received an overall symbol grade of "f", indicating failure in quality and the ability to be correctly read.Nova worked with the customer and a representative from epic to increase the quality of their barcodes to ensure this does not occur again.This required changing the drivers in the printers from pcl to postscript and increasing the length of the barcodes.In test, this resulted in an overall symbol grade of "c" which the representative from epic indicated was due to low toner in the printer.As this will take a few weeks to change throughout the facility, they have also implemented adt for patient validation as a safety measure to ensure no further mis-scans occur without detection.A capa is not required as a result of this investgation because the root cause of the error was determined to be poor barcode quality.Trending will be monitored for this and/or similar complaints.
|