|
There were multiple 510k numbers reported to be involved.The information for the additional 510k is as follows: g4.Pma / 510(k)#: k020321, k040099, k131331 and k250344.E1.Initial reporter facility name: (b)(6).Investigation summary: introduction a complaint alleges that the sample evaluation result was inconsistent.The customer was getting mis-identified results, most commonly with staphylococcus haemolyticus when expecting staphylococcus lugdunensis and staphylococcus intermedius when expecting staphylococcus saprophyticus.Material #: 443624 serial #: (b)(6).Investigational testing/ review a bd field service engineer was dispatched to the customer site.The fse noted that they were unable to simulate the results onsite.Log and binary files were sent in for further analysis and troubleshooting.Although no resolution was provided in this case, a solution was provided in a separate case where they replaced a light source board and performed several verification tests with passing results.Service history review for this instrument was completed and revealed no previous complaints related to this issue.Log files were sent in for review, but no resolution was provided.Conclusion / outcome as the resolution was provided in a separate case, this complaint is unconfirmed based on the information provided by service.The root cause cannot be determined with the information provided.Review of risk management files confirms there are no new or modified risks associated with this failure mode.Complaints received for this device and reported condition will continue to be tracked and trended.Information will be captured on trend reports and monitored.The bd business team regularly reviews the collected data for identification of emerging trends.
|