|
In response to the alleged event, a stryker qae contacted a stryker field service technician and a stryker sales account manager for further information.The stryker field service technician stated that he spoke to a manager, a lieutenant, at the account that confirmed the ambulance accident did occur and the coroner did not conduct an autopsy.He also confirmed that the patient was not in good health prior to the accident and had an external port of some kind in their abdominal area.This port was disturbed by the force of the impact from the accident.The patient was transported by another ambulance to the hospital after the accident who was alive and stable.The stryker sales account manager responded, saying the stryker field service technician has been the one on-site to inspect the equipment and has maintained communication with the customer.Therefore, the stryker sales account manager could not provide any additional information other than the frame of the cot is bent and could have even further, unseen, stresses/damages even beyond what is visible.As a result of this report, a visual and functional inspection was performed by the stryker field service technician.It was found that the issues for the cot involved in the ambulance accident was not due to any component level defect with the product.Based on the post-accident inspection and photos provided in the work order, a stryker qae determined the unit should be removed from use (rfu).The issue was resolved for the customer by performing a post-accident inspection, recommending removing the cot from use (rfu), and ensuring nothing else was needed from stryker.
|