The automated defibrillator was applied to the patient as instructed and the automated device indicated that a shock was advised after the device analyzed the patient's cardiac activity.In review of the cardiac rhythms displayed by the patient following the event, there was no shockable rhythm displayed but there was evidence of artifact.The device should not have advised to deliver a shock for artifact and is known to be able to analyze and differentiate between a shockable rhythm and artifact.The device was examined by the hospital htm department and not found to have any obvious defects or damage.
|