The hospital consistently uses the same model graft, and unlike usual use, it is said that the upper part was thin and the lower part was thick based on the blue line of the graft.He wants to ask the manufacturer if there is any problem with using the needle when the thin part is dialysis.There was no problem with the operation.
|
Investigation: the details of the complaint were the following "the hospital is a hospital that consistently uses the same model, and unlike usual use, it is said that the upper part was thin and the lower part was thick based on the blue line of the graft.He wants to ask the manufacturer if there are any problems with using the needle when the thin part is dialysis.There was no problem with the operation, and the remaining part can be returned." clarification on the initial complaint description was received from gfe responses.Photos were provided which clarify that the concern is with the differing wall thickness around the circumference of the graft.On the side of the graft where the blue line is printed, the wall thickness is thinner than on the opposite side of the graft.The device was implanted in the patient without adverse event and the remaining portion of the device was returned for evaluation.The returned device was evaluated.The complaint is confirmed as the differing wall thicknesses have been observed on the sample that was returned.A review of the finished good lot device history records as well as all sub assembly lots show that the grafts passed all quality and performance requirements during the manufacture of the product.There were no nonconformities identified that could be related to the complaint and there is no evidence that procedural or specification changes that occurred surrounding the time of the build could be related to the complaint.There is no indication of a nonconformity with this lot of grafts.A complaint history, complaint trend, and capa review did identify one related complaint for the same product code.That complaint was not confirmed and the device was also found to be conforming.The root cause was listed as user preference.There were no capas or complaint trends identified to specifically aid in the investigation.A risk review found that the risk management documents for this product adequately address the reported defect and the severity and anticipated occurrence level are appropriate.The labeling review determined that the instructions for use are appropriate as there are clear warnings and usability instructions related to use of a device that appears damaged.The investigation identifies that the manufacturing process allows variation in the wall thickness, however, the wall thickness of the device related to this complaint has been confirmed to be within specification.Therefore, the cause for the complaint is user preference.
|