Please note that updates were made to the following sections: 1.Section d.Box 4.Serial # 2.Section h.Box 4.Device manufacture date the autopulse platform in complaint was returned to zoll on 11/03/2014 for investigation.Investigation results as follows: visual inspection of the returned platform shows that the encoder cover was damaged.The physical damage found during visual inspection is not related to the reported complaint of a user advisory (ua) 17 (max motor on time exceeded during active operation) and fault 46 (software error).The physical damage appears to have been caused by normal wear and tear (autopulse manufactured in april of 2009).A review of the autopulse platform's archive was performed and confirmed the reported complaint.The date of event was not provided by the customer.However, the archive data shows that ua 17 and fault 46 occurred on (b)(6) 2014.Functional testing was performed and did not confirm the reported complaint.Load cell characterization testing was performed and indicated that both load cell modules were functioning within specifications.The platform was subjected to a run-in test for several hours with a 95% patient test fixture and good batteries.No faults or errors were observed during testing.Based on the investigation, the part identified for replacement was the front cover.In summary, the reported complaint of a ua 17 and fault 46 was confirmed based on the platform's archive review but was not reproduced during functional test.The root cause for ua 17 and fault 46 could not be determined.Per the autopulse maintenance guide, ua17 is an indication that the lifeband is twisted or battery voltage is low.Based on the review of the platform's archive, it was observed that the battery was fully charged when the ua 17 fault occurred.Therefore, a twisted lifeband could be likely to contribute to the ua 17 fault.Upon replacement of the front cover, the platform was re-evaluated through functional testing and passed all testing criteria.
|