|
Investigation summary:
introduction:
material #: 442020
lot/batch/serial #: unknown
customer claim: i request verification of the bactec equipment.The equipment released a sample with a negative result on (b)(6) at 5:45 pm, and hours later (7:46 pm) it reported that the same sample was positive.And when we performed the plate culture, the sample was positive.Attached is a screenshot of the audit report.Returned material analysis: epicenter reports were provided; however, the corresponding plots were not available for review.Investigational testing/ review: waters was not able to perform an investigation to the retention samples since batch number is unknown.The sensor inside the vial will not appear visibly different in positive and negative vials, however, the bd bactec¿ fluorescent series instrument can determine a difference in fluorescence.If at the end of the testing period a negative vial appears visually positive (i.E., chocolatized blood, bulging septum, and/or lysed), it should be subcultured and gram stained and treated as a presumptively positive.For maximum yield of isolates, negative cultures may be checked by stain and/or subcultured prior to discarding as negative.False negative readings may result when certain organisms are present which do not produce enough co2 to be detected by the system or significant growth has occurred before placing the vial into the system.Conclusion/outcome: based on the available information, the complaint could not be confirmed.The batch/lot number was not provided; therefore, retention sample testing, lot-specific complaint history review, and batch history record review could not be performed.No objective evidence was available to support a product-related failure.Consequently, no corrective actions were required.A cross-functional team continues to monitor product complaints for trends and determines whether additional actions are warranted.
|