|
It was reported that, during treatment for petrol flame burns, an acticoat 40x40cm ctn 6 dressing was applied along with a competitor's product (mepitel) and the patient was discharged home.On day #3 post-injury, the burn had progressed and a large amount of devitalized skin was removed.Both acticoat and mepitel were applied again.Even though by day #8 some areas were healed, on day #12 deeper areas were sloughy with slimy exudate.This event was reviewed by a plastic surgeon and flamazine was applied.Wound swabs were taken, which revealed bacterial growth (strep a and staph aureus).The wounds subsequently cleared up after ssd and silver foam application.
|
|
Section h3, h6: no product was returned for this case.A documentation review was performed.Record showed that this batch passed all acceptance criteria and was compliant upon release for distribution.There were no indications to suggest that the product did not meet manufacturing specifications upon release for distribution.Complaint history records details a small number of cases of this nature, with no open or closed escalations within the scope of this report.The instruction for use "ifu" the ifu provides adequate instruction on the safe operation and use of this product, and there are no contributory factors contained within.The risk management documentation for acticoat has been reviewed to assess whether the alleged failure and associated foreseeable harm has been anticipated.A review of the risk files has confirmed that the failure mode and associated risks have been anticipated within the risk file and that the anticipated risk level is still adequate, except for the hazardous situation sequence of events requires inclusion to consider misuse of acticoat when an additional product is used as the primary wound dressing, impeding direct contact of the acticoat dressing with the wound resulting in reduced benefits of the dressings antimicrobial properties.Therefore, an action has been captured to include this hazardous situationsequence of events.Medical review concluded: based on the information provided, it is possible that the length of time the dressings were allowed to remain on the wounds following the initial dressing change (greater than 3 days between the 2nd and 3rd clinic follow-ups/wound redressing) in addition to the presence of a competitor primary contact layer contributed to the reported events.As well burn wounds are susceptible to infections inherently.The acticoat use guide instructs dressing may remain intact up to 3 days.Even though both staph aureus and strep a can survive as waterborne pathogens, it is unknown if the bacteria could be linked to the patient¿s use of rainwater/well water to moisten the dressings; however, wound colonization from normal flora would be likely past the 3-day wear time and if dressing was not kept moist.It was reported that the ¿wounds cleared up after ssd and silver foam application¿/patient was discharged ¿after the ssd treatment for 2/7¿.The patient impact included the reported sloughy/slimy exudate at day 12 with subsequent wound cultures and reported bacterial infection after use of a competitor primary contact layer in combination with acticoat (as secondary dressing) in a home setting, with change to topical/ssd for remaining treatment/healing.The patient impact is determined to be the reported sloughy/slimy exudate at day 12 with subsequent wound cultures and reported bacterial infection after use of a competitor primary contact layer in combination with acticoat (as secondary dressing) in a home setting, with change to topical/ssd for remaining treatment/healing.No manufacturing, packaging, labelling, design, concerns nor adverse trend have been observed, therefore no corrective actions are deemed necessary.
|