Customer called on (b)(6) 2014 to report a patient treatment performed monday, (b)(6), 2014 that had a clotted bowl with a banding appearance.Customer stated the bowl had the same appearance as the treatment last week that resulted in a bowl break.Customer stated the treatment was aborted and no blood was returned to the patient.On (b)(6), 2014, 2:36 pm est: css called customer to request clarification on the initial call documented above.On (b)(6): customer called back to report that after further inquiry into the incident, customer found banding may refer to "weird" separation in the bowl at the time of the procedure since they were not able to resolve the return pressure alarms.Customer stated that they noted clotting in the centrifuge bowl when unloading the kit from the machine.Css asked if there were any products returned to the patient.Customer stated no there were no products returned to the patient due to return pressure alarms as well as clotting in the bowl.Css informed customer that return pressure alarms were not reported to therakos at the time of the call.Customer stated that he was calling on behalf another nurse who was actually performing/overseeing the procedure.
|
Batch record review of lot b345 was conducted.There were no non conformances related to this lot.Lot met release requirements.Trends have been reviewed for return pressure complaint category and no trend has been detected.The assessment is based on info available at the time of the investigation.No product was returned by the customer.Our investigation did not indicate that a malfunction has occurred.However, as the customer perceived that the product might have malfunctioned and believed that the centrifuge might break, and therakos was not able to confirm that the product did not malfunction, out of an abundance of caution, therakos is reporting this incident.Refer to capa# (b)(4) for late reporting rationale.(b)(4).
|