|
H11:section a through f - the information provided by bd represents all of the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant / reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bd.The following were reviewed as part of this investigation: patient severity, trend analysis, applicable previous investigation(s), sample (if available), and applicable fmea documents.Based on a review of this information, the following was concluded: the complaint of a broken statlock extension tube was inconclusive because the returned sample was not the originally implicated device.The product returned for evaluation was one statlock iv plus catheter stabilization device.The sample was received in its original sealed packaging.The sample was unremarkable to gross inspection.Microscopic inspection of the extension tubing joints was unremarkable.Tactile inspection of the sample was unremarkable.An attempt to infuse water through the extension tube using a 12ml syringe revealed it to be patent to infusion and aspiration with no observed leaks.No defects or deficiencies were discovered during evaluation of the returned sample; however, the sealed state of the device indicated that it was not the originally implicated device, but was an unused lot sample.A lot history review (lhr) of judy0304 showed three other similar product complaint(s) from this lot number.The complaints for this lot number have been reported from the same facility.
|