This event occurred in (b)(6).Occupation is lay user/patient the test strips were requested for investigation.The product has not been received at this time.If the product is returned in the future, a follow up report will be submitted.Routine retention testing is performed.Retention testing data is reviewed, and appropriate actions are taken as needed.The investigation did not identify a product problem.The cause of the event could not be determined.
|
The initial reporter (patient's daughter) wanted to check the coaguchek device with serial number: (b)(4) as the patient had been admitted to the hospital with a stroke on (b)(6) 2020.The reporter wanted to check the device as the results were displayed in %quick.The patient knows the device can read in both %quick and inr and knows how to switch between units.The results from the device prior to the event were: (b)(6) 2020: 23% q (2.9 inr) ;(b)(6) 2020: 1.8 inr; (b)(6) 2020: 29% q (2 inr) ;(b)(6) 2020: 12% q (4.3 inr); (b)(6) 2020: 26% q (2.7 inr); (b)(6) 2020: 23% q (2.9 inr).The patient's therapeutic range is 2.5 - 3.0 inr.The patient was admitted to the hospital on (b)(6) 2020 with a stroke, and was discharged on (b)(6) 2020.The patient was treated in the hospital with heparin and syntrom.Since being home, the patient is only taking syntrom.There was no allegation that incorrect results were received from the device.No meter to laboratory comparisons were made while the patient was in the hospital.On (b)(6) 2020, the patient was sent a control solution to verify the strip and meter performance.The patient's meter was tested with the current lot of strips and a different lot of strips.The results were 1.9 inr and 1.8 inr.The patient's test strips were also tested with their meter and a different meter.The results were 1.9 and 1.8 inr.All results were within the expected range.This case is being reported under an abundance of caution.
|