|
The investigation has concluded that lower and higher than expected vitros valproic acid (valp) reagent lot 2511-34-2390 results were obtained from a single level of non-vitros biorad multiqual lot 56750 control and a single level of vitros therapeutic drug monitoring performance verifier (tdm pv) fluid on two different vitros xt7600 systems.J76001978 biorad l2 vitros valp results of 538.1 and 538.1 umol/l vs.The vitros peer mean of 448.1 umol/l.The assignable cause of the event could not be determined.Diagnostic vitros gentamicin (gent) within-run precision testing to assess instrument performance was not processed, therefore, an analyzer performance issue cannot be ruled out as contributing to the event.Historic quality control results obtained from vitros valp reagent lot 2511-34-2390 showed some imprecision, therefore, a reagent related performance issue cannot be ruled out as contributing to the event.Acceptable performance was obtained using an alternate lot of vitros valp reagent.J76001977 biorad l2 vitros valp result of 357.8 umol/l vs.The vitros peer mean of 448.1 umol/l.Vitros tdm d2151 result of 398.28 umol/l vs.The expected result of 517.0 umol/l.The assignable cause of the event is a suboptimal calibration.The cause of the suboptimal calibration is unknown.A diagnostic vitros gent within-run precision test, used to assess instrument performance was within the acceptance guideline, therefore, an analyzer performance issue did not likely contribute to the event.Historic quality control results obtained from vitros valp reagent lot 2511-34-2390 showed some imprecision, therefore, a reagent related performance issue cannot be ruled out as contributing to the event.Acceptable performance was obtained using an alternate lot of vitros valp reagent.Continual tracking and trending of complaints has not identified any signals that would point to a potential systemic performance issue with vitros reagent lot 2511-34-2390.The higher than expected vitros valp results were obtained from non-patient quality control fluids, however, the investigation could not rule out that patient samples were not, or would not be affected if the event recurred undetected.There was no allegation of patient harm as a result of this event.
|