|
Investigation summary: this complaint is for misidentification of candida auris as candida albicans, candida parapsilosis complex or prototheca wickerhamii for two specimens from the same patient when using phoenix panel yeast id (catalog #448316) batch number 3010476.The customer provided phoenix generated lab reports, panels and isolates for the investigation.The lab reports show organism identifications of candida albicans, candida parapsilosis complex and prototheca wickerhamii.The customer returned four isolates, two on chromagar and two on tsa with sheep blood agar plates.The four strains were subcultured onto sabouraud-dextrose (sab) then tested on a bruker maldi-tof and verified as candida auris.To investigate, two retention panels from the complaint batch 3010476 were tested using in house isolate c.Haemulonii/auris (1030-lspq-01314) on a phoenix m50 machine and evaluated for identification results.Next, two retention panels from the complaint batch 3010476 were tested using in house isolate c.Haemulonii/auris (1030-lspq-01315) on a phoenix m50 machine and evaluated for identification results.Each of the four customer returned strains were tested with four customer returned panels, using isolates from the first subculture plate.Each of the four strains were also tested on one returned panel from the second subculture plate.Two control panels of the same material but a different batch were also used for control testing.The four customer returned strains were tested in triplicate on panels from a control batch, which were isolated from the second subculture plate.Another control run was performed using in house strains isolated from the second subculture plate.Correct identification was seen in retention panels and in house isolates.Misidentification or no identification was seen in at least one instance of each round of testing of the customer returned isolates using customer returned panels and control panels.Only the testing with both control batches inoculated with strains cultured from chromagar returns resulted in correct identification.This complaint is confirmed for misidentification.It is to be noted that misidentifications of the customer returned strains were seen with yeast id control panels, suggesting that this is not an issue with a particular panel batch.Additionally, because the in-house strains were identified correctly on the phoenix system and the four misidentified customer returned isolates were isolated from the same patient, this suggests that this is a strain specific issue, and not indicative of a defect in the phoenix system as a whole.Upon review, no quality notifications were generated on the complaint batch.A review of complaints revealed two additional complaints from the complaint batch, one of which is related to this defect and unconfirmed.Complaint trending was performed, and no trends were identified associated with this defect.Bd id/ast plant quality will continue to monitor for trends and take action as necessary.This mdr is being submitted as part of a retrospective review of records dating april 2023-2025, under capa 11910483.
|