The customer stated that the architect analyzer generated (b)(6) results on one patient.The results provided for (b)(6).Patient sample was sent for western blot = (b)(6).On (b)(6) 2014, a new sample was drawn on this patient due to exposure by a hospital employee, and the architect (b)(6) results were again (b)(6).The hospital nurse had a cut on an index finger and was not wearing gloves while she cleaned a dressing on the patient.The cut on the nurse's index finger came into contact with the patient's blood.The nurse requested (b)(6) therapy because of the (b)(6) results generated by the architect, therefore, this is an adverse event.
|
(b)(4).Evaluation: further evaluation of the customer issue included a review of the complaint text, accuracy testing, a search for similar complaints, manufacturing records, and a review of labeling.A retained reagent kit of lot 36077li00 was tested for specificity accuracy.Results of the specificity testing showed normal performance without (b)(6) results for lot 36077li00.A review of complaints determined that there is no unusual activity for lot 36077li00.Review of the product labeling concluded that the (b)(6) results are sufficiently addressed.Manufacturing records were reviewed for lot 36077li00 and there were no issues identified.There is not enough information to reasonably suggest a malfunction, since potential (b)(6) results were obtained for two discreet samples on one patient.Based on the investigation, it has been determined that the product is performing acceptably.
|