The customer, a syncardia certified hospital, reported that the freedom driver exhibited a battery alarm while the driver was plugged into wall power.The patient started to exchange the batteries and the driver exhibited a fault alarm.There was no reported adverse patient impact.The customer also reported that the patient was subsequently switched to the backup driver.
|
Alarm history and patient data file review found six new alarms recorded in the driver's eeprom.Three fault code "12" alarms were confirmed to be produced at syncardia during the manufacturing/service process functional testing prior to shipment to customer.The 4b, 36, and 39 fault codes were experienced in the field: a "4b" alarm, "right drive pressure too low for long enough to be permanent time-out", could be generated as a result of damage to the u21 pressure sensor of the main pcba.A "36" alarm, "speaker 2 voltage too low when off", could be generated during onboard battery exchange while operating freedom driver only on battery power or if an onboard battery is not fully latched in place, intermittent communication errors can result in a fault alarm.A "39" alarm, "speaker 2 voltage too high when on" could also be generated during onboard battery exchange while operating freedom driver only on battery power or if an onboard battery is not fully latched in place, intermittent communication errors can result in a fault alarm.Visual inspection of external components revealed a cracked freedom front housing bosses and missing insert, impact damage between mainboard and primary motor and damage to the u21 flow sensor nozzle was observed.A crack was also observed in the scotch yoke of the piston cylinder assembly (pca) and the primary motor controller had possible "burn" mark.Visual inspection of internal components revealed no abnormalities.Freedom driver failed incoming functional testing producing an audible fault alarm before the testing was completed.Driver was placed on dmc tank for an extended observation run test.Driver operated as intended and no alarms were recorded.A battery exchange test was then performed.No alarms were produced during this test.Failure investigation for this complaint confirmed the customer reported fault alarm via alarm history data review.The complaint could not be replicated via observational testing.The root cause of the fault alarm was unable to be determined.No issues were noted with any battery, power supply, or the driver that would cause the alarm experienced by the patient.However there were new fault codes recorded in the drivers eeprom data that are consistent with performing a battery exchange.It was likely the battery exchange performed by the patient caused these faults and the red alarm experienced by the patient, however this by itself is not a device malfunction.(b)(4).Follow-up report 1.
|