The customer¿s reported complaint of an over infusion of insulin was not replicated during testing.Log analysis results: results from a review of the logs confirmed the reported insulin infusion occurring on (b)(6)2021 between 02:01 pm and 02:59 pm.Prior to the start of the infusion, the pcu was powered up at 9:45 am on that day.At the time of the reported event the system consisted of the source pump module s/n (b)(6) (channel a), pump module s/n (b)(6) (channel b), pump module s/n (b)(6) (channel c) and pump module s/n (b)(6).The profile ¿adults¿ was suspected to be in use on this date.Based on the logs, the insulin infusion was programed at 2:01 pm where the user selected a standard dose therapy type and a non-weight based dosing dose unit type.The user entered a dose of 4.6unit/h and a vtbi of 80ml.A default drug amount of (b)(4)units, diluent volume of 100mls and 4.6ml/h rate was programmed and started.The pvi was noted at 0.0ml.At 2:57 pm, the user programmed a delay until 22:22hrs and reviews the delay.The user opens the door approximately 2 minutes later and removes the device.The pvi was recorded at 4.282ml.The incident administration set was not identified with any leaks, damage or any other anomaly that may have attributed to the reported incident.Results from the administration set¿s silicone segment measurements found the set within specifications.The root cause of the customer¿s experience with an over infusion was not determined during the investigation.Device history review: a review of the device history record showed the device had a manufacture date of 05/14/2004.The review was performed beginning from the date of manufacture to the date of product release for distribution.No qn review was performed on the device since it was determined to be built prior to the implementation of sap 4.7.A review of the complaint history record was performed for the s/n (b)(6) which confirmed one similar complaint with the same or related failure mode for this customer.However, the file was closed canceled since it was a duplicate complaint.
|