|
Additional information - this mdr is being submitted to include the below: h6: investigation results under type of investigation, investigation findings, investigation conclusions.H11: investigation summary: per revision 21 of procedure (b)(4), a child investigation is not required to document the dhr review for a type 2 reportable complaint.However, the child was created to allow the parent record to advance to review and summary.Since it was created, the dhr review was documented within the child.Complaint investigation results: a complaint investigation has been initiated under complaint investigation child record (b)(4).The batch 5282521, in question was manufactured at the reynosa site.Device history record (dhr) review: the lot 5282521 was manufactured according to the work instruction (wi) version 37 and manufactured in the line l1 on 12-jun-2019, with a total of (b)(4) units.Review of the dhr showed that all relevant tests required during the related processes had been fulfilled and met the requirements.No deviation was identified, nor maintenance events were recorded related to complaint code.The sub-assembly: gluing of tubing of the lot 5275850 was manufactured according to the work instruction (wi) version 34 and manufactured in the machine sc01, on 10-jun-2019, with a total of (b)(4) units.Review of the dhr showed that all relevant tests required during the related processes had been fulfilled and met the requirements.No deviation was identified, nor maintenance events were recorded related to complaint code.Conclusion summary of complaint investigation: as a result of the following: no non-conformance (nc) raised during production related to complaint code, no trend identified for the lot in question and malfunction code, no further actions are required.This complaint will not require further root cause investigation nor corrective and preventive action (capa) plan.Therefore, this issue will be monitored through the post market surveillance activities.
|