|
On (b)(6) 2023, meter involved in incident was returned for investigation.During initial diagnostic testing, it was noted that the print was rubbed off on label and there was a white foreign material under the lcd screen cover.Customer did not return or report a strip lot, so on (b)(6) 2023, reference strip lot uu10machc, expiration 2024-07-09 was tested with the returned meter.Meter and reference strips passed blood testing with no failures detected.Meter will be returned to the manufacturer for further investigation.
|
|
Customer originally called on (b)(6) 2023, however, they needed to gather more information, and the majority of the information received was on(b)(6) 2023, so the complaint was logged that day, but the aware date of the issue was (b)(6) 2023.Ems went to a call, and they received a reading of 297, but when they transported the patient to the hospital, the reading received was 1,940.Reporter does not know how much time passed between the reading they received and the reading the hospital received.The reporter did not know if treatment was altered due to the reading and she was not sure, but stated probably not, as they normally would have just transported the patient to the hospital.They did a control test after returning to the station and the meter read within range on the cs test.The reporter does not have the test strips or control solution anymore, so the lot information is not available for either the test strips or the control solution.Replaced meter and sent return label.
|