Registered internally as a complaint ((b)(4)) for further investigation by natus.A separate mdr (3010611950-2016-00005) is being filed for a second, similar incident also reported under complaint (b)(4).Natus quality assurance was notified of this incident on june 2, 2016.Additional information requested by natus on june 9, 2016, collected and reported to natus by the customer on (b)(6) 2016 stated that the associated incident actually occurred on (b)(6) 2016.Eeg testing was described as "continuous eeg monitoring" that lasted 48 hours.The customer further described that the patient "developed a pressure injury to the forehead".The patient was described as a female, (b)(6).The customer reported the patient was subsequently treated with topical ointments for the injuries further explaining that the patient was a premature infant and "the device used was not a pediatric version".The electrodes used are identified in natus sales literature as "ideal for psg, ncs, sep, aep, emg, eng and iom studies".The customer also communicated they chose the electrodes for eeg monitoring because of the cushioned gel pad.The customer has since discontinued use of the indicated product for eeg monitoring of such patients.Since several months had subsequently elapsed, the patients weight was estimated to be one (1) kilogram in this report based on the patients reported age and condition (premature) when the incident occurred.In addition to the patient information, the customer also stated that no other natus devices were in use at the time of the incident.The customer had since disposed of the actual device used and could not provide lot traceability.Manufacturing records could therefore not be reviewed nor could the actual device in question be evaluated.
|