Onsite testing of the involved devices by a spacelabs field service engineer (fse) confirmed the products performed to specifications.The testing was witnessed by a facility staff member.The customer provided the patient retrospective database which was reviewed by a spacelabs lead software engineer.The following information was obtained: leads ii and v1 were the monitored leads at the time of the complaint episode.On (b)(6) at 6:24 a.M., monitoring initiated.At this time, ecg rate alarm limits were 150 bpm (high rate limit) and 125 bpm (low rate limit).On (b)(6) from 6:24 a.M., a high priority alarm for ecg high rate was initiated.Alarm continued until (b)(6) at 6:48 a.M.On (b)(6) at 6:24 a.M., a high priority alarm for resp high rate was initiated.Alarm continued until (b)(6) at 7:04 a.M.On (b)(6) at 7:07 a.M., a high priority alarm was initiated.Alarm continued until (b)(6) at 7:10 a.M.When the ecg low rate limit was manually adjusted to 86 bpm (or less).On (b)(6) at 7:15 a.M., a high priority alarm for resp low rate was initiated.On (b)(6) at 7:16 a.M., there is an ecg (stacked) alarm record in the ics database indicating that multiple high-priority alarms were simultaneously active.Thereafter, numerous high priority ecg and resp alarms were active throughout the next 21 minutes.The presence of the alarm records in the database shows that the alarm conditions were appropriately identified by the monitoring system.At this time, we know of no reason that audible alarm indications would not have also been present at the time of the event as these indicators operated according to specifications when tested by a spacelabs fse.There was no product malfunction demonstrated per onsite product testing by a spacelabs fse or by review of the retrospective database by a spacelabs lead software engineer.This report is considered final and the issue closed.
|