Jada system fell out of the patient [device issue].Placing a jada system with a speculum/ provider inserted it into the internal cervical os [wrong technique in device usage process].No additional ae reported [no adverse event].Case narrative: this spontaneous report originating from united states was received from an unspecified nursing staff via clinical educator (ce), referring to a non-pregnant female patient of unknown age.The patient's concurrent conditions, drug reactions/allergies and concomitant medications were not reported.Her medical history included vaginal delivery and pregnancy.This report concerns 1 patient and 1 device (suspected device).On 08-may-2023 (reported as couple of days ago), the patient was placed with vacuum-induced hemorrhage control system (jada system) via an unknown route (lot#, serial # and expiration date were not reported) for postpartum bleeding (postpartum haemorrhage) by the physician (reported as provider).It was reported that the provider placed the vacuum-induced hemorrhage control system (jada system) with a speculum (wrong technique in device usage process), filled the cervical seal, connected it to suction and the vacuum-induced hemorrhage control system (jada system) fell out of the patient (device issue).Speculum was removed prior to the vacuum-induced hemorrhage control system (jada system) falling out per clinical educator.Another provider was called to place the vacuum-induced hemorrhage control system (jada system) (presumably the second device) and that provider inserted it into the internal cervical orifice (os).(the ce was unsure if the second provider reinserted the same vacuum-induced hemorrhage control system (jada system), however, it was also reported that "more than one vacuum-induced hemorrhage control system (jada system) devices were used"; discrepancy).Per the second provider "that was how he always placed them".Per clinical educator the second vacuum-induced hemorrhage control system (jada system) worked well for the second insertion.It was also reported that the patient sought medical attention, and it wasn't the operators' first time using the vacuum-induced hemorrhage control system (jada system).Limited amount of information was provided.It was also reported that treatment with vacuum-induced hemorrhage control system (jada system) was discontinued.No additional adverse event (ae) (no adverse event) was reported.It was unknown if the vacuum-induced hemorrhage control system (jada system) was available for evaluation.Upon internal review, the event "device issue" was considered as serious as it required intervention.Medical device reporting criteria: serious injury.When the lot number is unknown, a technical investigation of the specific manufacturing process which includes review of records associated with a known lot number cannot be performed.Fda code (health effects-health impact per annex f): 4648 insufficient information (there is not yet enough information available to classify the health impact).Fda code (health effects-health impact per annex f): 4641 unexpected medical intervention (patient required an unforeseen medical intervention, excluding surgery, which was not on the original treatment plan.).
|