During the first on-site log analysis, an error entry regarding the ventilator motor was found.A device self-test was performed.In addition, various modes of ventilation were tested.The primus and its ventilator in particular worked flawlessly.Due to the logbook entry, the motor was replaced as a precautionary measure and sent in together with the electronic logbook for further analysis.The case in question could be reconstructed by means of the information recorded in the log file.The affected device was turned on at 7:10am on the day of the event and passed the device self-test without error.The case in question was started at 10:54am in man / spont.About a minute later, the user activated the pressure mode.At 11:10am the primus detected a pressure peak and generated an audible and visible aw.Pressure high and a pressure negative alarm.In parallel it recorded 2 encoder check errors which indicate that the expected position of the ventilator piston deviated from that actually detected.The primus has responded as specified for this case, interrupted automatic ventilation and displayed an audible and visible ventilator fail alarm.In this case, the user still has the option of manual ventilation with 100% o2 and anesthetic gas.The examination of the returned ventilator motor has revealed any failure, which goes along with the reported information, that after the incident on site both self-test and also ventilation functioned.It can be concluded that the logbook entries were not the result of a technical error.Apparently, there was a pressure peak (for example, due to movement of the patient) during ventilation, which had affected the movement of the ventilator piston and eventually to the above-mentioned deviations in the position detection.
|