The user facility reported that the end-users were not activating the safety mechanism as educated resulting in needle stick injuries.Follow up communication from the user facility confirmed the following: there was no fault with the product but a resistance to using the product properly; it was reported the facility had received in service training on the device; the end user was manipulating against the ifu, and training provided, resulting in needle stick; it was reported no medical intervention or follow up treatment required; and nopatient impact.
|
The actual device was not returned to the manufacturer for evaluation and the lot is unknown, which limits the investigation to the information provided by the user facility and evaluation of the retained samples of the involved product code.The following are the lot numbers of product code mn*svs23b18 that were manufactured during the half past year ((b)(4) 2015): 150102b, 150124b, 150417b, 150418b and 150612b.Three lots were chosen randomly for evaluation which were 150102b, 150417b and 150612b.Visual inspection of these retention samples revealed no defects.The angle of the safety shield was inspected and met manufacturer specifications.Activation of the safety shield was activated successfully using the method indicated in the ifu with no abnormity.Breakage resistance test after activation of the safety unit revealed no defects.A simulation test was performed to verify the blood-taking function and observe whether the finger will be exposed to the winged needle performed according to the ifu.It was confirmed when the safety shield is flipped forward to the needle during the normal operation, the needle is still under the penetration status.Operating the device according to the ifu, the finger will not be exposed to the winged needle.A review of the manufacture records, process inspection records and release inspection records during the past half year for ((b)(4) 2015) confirmed that there was no production related problems.The production lot number was not provided by the user facility, which prevented a meaningful review of the device history record and complaint files.There is no evidence that this event was related to a device defect or malfunction.Although the exact cause cannot be determined based on the available information, the investigation results confirm that the performance of the retention samples conformed to the performance requirements during normal use.All currently available information has been placed on file by qa at the manufacturing facility for appropriate tracking, trending and follow-up.
|