|
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, complaint and lot history review, applicable previous investigation(s), sample (if available), labeling, applicable manufacture records, and applicable fmea documents.Based on a review of this information, the following was concluded: the complaint of a damaged statlock is confirmed; however, the exact cause of the damage could not be determined from the returned photographs.Two photographs of a picc plus statlock device were returned for evaluation.An initial visual observation of one of the photographs showed a damaged statlock device in a clear plastic bag.The foam pad of the device appears to be torn in two and the retainer appears to be completely detached from the pad.The left side of the pad appears to be detached from and repositioned on the liner, and the right side of the pad appears to be still attached to the liner.What appears to be an impression from the retainer was observed in the foam of the right side of the pad.No detail of the damage could be discerned from the returned photograph.A lot history review (lhr) of judxf064 showed no other similar product complaint(s) from this lot number.
|
|
It was reported that the bonding caused the stabilizer to break.No other information was provided.Additional information received stated within complaint comments on 03.Aug.2020: "the healthcare staff was performing the curing to the patient and at the moment of preparing the device and removing the paper that it brings, considering that it was too adhered to its packaging, it causes the device to break.The damage was in the package (not in the statlock).There is adhesive in the package, that makes more difficult the moment of opening it to use the device.The issue was noticed prior device use.There was no patient involvement.".
|