| Catalog Number |
802516 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Component Misassembled (4004)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
03/18/2024
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that intermittent catheter did not have an outer coating causing friction when inserted and the hole was too large causing the catheter to flex when going inside the bladder.Per customer follow up received on 02apr2024, it was reported that there were two lots affected.There was no patient impact.Per additional information received on 02apr2024, the one on the right has no outer coating so it did not slide smoothly and causes friction.The hole was too large and caused the catheter to flex when going into the bladder.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The investigation is still in progress.Once the investigation is complete a supplemental report will be filed.H11: section a through f - the information provided by bd represents all 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.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that intermittent catheter did not have an outer coating causing friction (lot#nghv1844), (lot#nghx3849) when inserted and the hole was too large causing the catheter to flex when going in the bladder.Per customer follow up received on 02apr2024, it was reported that there were two lots affected.There was no patient impact.(lot#nghv1844) (lot#nghx3849).Per additional information received on 02apr2024, the one on the right has no outer coating so it did not slide smoothly and causes friction.The hole was too large and caused the catheter to flex when going into the bladder.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The reported event was inconclusive because no sample was available for evaluation and further investigation did not result in any additional findings.The exact root cause could not be identified.Although a root cause could not be definitively identified, based on the risk documentation review, a potential root cause for this type of failure could be " over dried due to operator error." however, there was insufficient information to confirm this potential root cause.A review of the device history record did not show any problems or conditions that would have contributed to the reported issue.A labeling review was not performed because labeling could not have prevented the reported failure.Correction: d.H11: section a through f - the information provided by bd represents all 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.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|