|
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 the needle retraction spring not functioning as intended was confirmed; however, the root cause was not identified.The product returned for evaluation was three photographs depicting a 2.25¿ accucath peripheral iv catheter assembly.The catheter had been advanced and was not visible in any of the photographs.Two of the photographs depicted the needle, which extended from the housing.Blood residue was evident on the needle shaft.The remaining photograph depicted the guidewire slider fully withdrawn into the housing.The needle carrier appeared to partially withdrawn into the housing.The distal end of the spring was visible just above the needle carrier and was not pressed against the distal end of the housing.The spring appeared to be caught on the needle carrier.Interference between the spring and the needle carrier appeared to cause or contribute to the observed spring mis-location; however, inspection of the submitted photographs was insufficient to identify the cause of that interference.Consequently this complaint is confirmed as ¿cause unknown¿ at this time.H3 other text : evaluation findings are in section h.11.
|