User's initial complaint was received on (b)(6) 2022 about sensor inaccuracies, but no specific examples or dates were provided.User also mentioned that she still had bruising at the insertion site, and customer care recommended to have the bruising examined by hcp as the bruising could have potentially affected the temporary sensor inaccuracies reported by the user.Customer care made several attempts to follow up with the user, however no response was received from the user.User also complained about not receiving predictive alerts, but this was due to the functionality being disabled in the system by the user.On (b)(6) 2023, a social media comment was posted by the user where she reported the serious adverse event, however, no date of event was provided by the user.Customer care again made several attempts to follow up with the user, however, the user remained unresponsive.Based on the review of sensor data synced by the user in dms, the overall system performance was within expectations, with some occasional lag that's inherent to the system.Since no specific examples of sensor inaccuracies or the date for the adverse event were provided, no further investigation was possible.Customer case made several attempts to follow up with the user, however, the user remained unresponsive.The system was in use until (b)(6) 2022 per dms.User had mentioned a wish to have the sensor removed, however, the removal status could not be confirmed due to no response from the user.H3.Device evaluated by manufacturer? yes.H6.Investigation findings updated to 3221.H6.Investigation conclusions updated to 67.
|