H.6 investigation summary: this complaint alleges a failure on the focalpoint instrument (p/n 490398, s/n (b)(6)).The customer reported a false negative result on their instrument, low grade cells were noted outside the field of view.Per the (b)(4) focalpoint gs false negative test work instruction with 1 false negative result reported, the machine is operating within claims.This work instruction provides methodology for determining whether the system is operating within the product insert claims based on clinical trial data.Once calculated it assigns a score called a k value.If the k value is greater than or equal to the number of false negative slides, the machine is performing within claims.Due to only 1 false negative result being reported this means the k value is within specification.This is an unconfirmed failure of the instrument.Samples were not received by quality for investigation and thus, returned material investigation could not occur.Review of device history record for instrument serial number, (b)(6) is not required because this complaint does not allege an early life failure or failure at installation and has changed configuration since release from manufacturing due to service repairs/pms.Service history review was performed for the instrument and no additional work orders were observed for the complaint failure mode reported.Root cause is performance variation in optical system or fov.Per (b)(4) work instructions: false negative test ¿ focalpoint gs, a false negative (fn) is defined as ¿a patient slide that has been evaluated by fov only by the focalpoint gs¿, operating as labeled for primary screening that is later determined by manual review to be ascus+.¿ fov (field of view) only slides are ¿a category of patient slides that had only fovs reviewed during processing with no full slide review done.¿ and ¿all fovs were deemed normal, no abnormalities detected.¿ this is an unconfirmed failure of a bd product.Bd will continue to closely monitor trends associated with this complaint.Complaint history for results was reviewed for the month of september.The upper control limit was not breached, and trends were not identified associated with this defect.No new trends, risks, or hazards were identified as a result of this complaint.The issue in this complaint does not require the initiation of a corrective and preventative action (capa).This complaint will be included in the periodic trend review.H3 other text : see h.10.
|