|
On 20oct2023, additional information was received indicating that this report, with the event date of (b)(6) 2023, was created for additional investigation of an event that occurred on (b)(6) 2023 (addressed in mfr report number 1218950-2023-00620); no root cause could be determined at that time, and the customer did not request further investigation at that time, but did so later on (b)(6) 2023.Allegation against the mx700 was indicated on (b)(6) 2023.See mfr report number 1218950-2023-00660 for the allegation against the philips patient information center ix.The following functional tests and communication were performed: a philips field service engineer (fse) and a clinical specialist (cs) went to the customer site to evaluate the device and to determine a root cause of the customer's allegation that "on (b)(6) 2023 at 8:57am patient assigned to bed 3411 in nicu department had a heart rate (hr) of 310 bpm but no alarm from piic ix computer was displayed.Hr high limit was set to 200." the fse and cs reviewed audit logs from (b)(6) 2023 and tested the device to ensure the mx700 monitor was alarming appropriately.The fse stated that looking at the audit logs across multiple days, the baby alarmed consistently, then there was about an hour gap during the event where the baby did not alarm at all during the time frame in question.The baby had and has continued to alarm without issue.This was also validated on-site using a chicken heart to generate multiple alarms at all different limits, using the monitor in question.The fse and cs believed this anomaly is due to something customer related and not the monitor.Results of functional testing and log review determined the mx700 monitor was alarming per specifications and the event may have been an anomaly not related to the device, but more likely user error.The engineer provided their analysis findings.The lack of alarm occurred was considered an anomaly not related to the device, but the root cause is unknown.Extensive tests were performed and the device was confirmed to be operating per specifications.There was no patient harm.The investigation concludes that no further action is required at this time.If additional information is received the complaint file will be reopened.
|