The (b)(6) state public health newborn screening laboratory uses the perkinelmer screening center module of specimen gate (sgsc) software (a class i medical device) to store, retrieve, and process the data associated with specimen testing including but not limited to patient demographics, tests ordered, test results, test result interpretation, quality control results, and result codes (flags) that may be associated with the specimen from its entry into the laboratory workflow until patient report is generated and released.When sgsc software is installed, configurable settings are programmed based on the customer preferences.For instance, each laboratory enters their specific population based reference ranges that are used to evaluate if a patient's test results are normal, below or above the reference range and require further action such as repeat testing.This laboratory specific logic automates the flow of the specimen through the laboratory.The customer defines the nomenclature used for their result codes (flags), and when the software encounters the predefined result code the software processes the specimen according to the logic associated with the result code.The newborn screening laboratory received 2 specimens for the patient.By protocol, two specimens should be sent for all babies born in (b)(6).The first specimen was received on (b)(6) 2015.The initial c0 was low, triggering a confirmation request.The confirmation was not tested by the laboratory, but the confirmation record was attached to a separate assay that the specimen was not punched to, causing incomplete results for the confirmation cud (carnitine uptake defect) so the laboratory was unable to print the report and contacted perkinelmer for assistance.Perkinelmer cancelled and unattached the records that were incorrectly associated with the separate assay.A review item was created for this specimen on (b)(6) 2015 at 10:45 am preventing the report from being printed.The laboratory closed the review item on (b)(6) 2015 at 11:36 am allowing the report to be printed, displaying normal for the cud disorder even though testing needed to be confirmed.The second specimen was received on (b)(6) 2015, analyzed and reported as normal for cud disorder on (b)(6) 2015.The patient report released did not contain any erroneous content.(b)(4).
|