|
E1: (b)(6).A philips remote technical support specialist (tss) interviewed the customer who reported no alarm was perceived despite low invasive arterial blood pressure (art) values on (b)(6) 2026 between 04:00¿05:00.The customer requested verification of alarm functionality, alarm configuration, and system behavior.The reported issue could not be reproduced under investigation conditions as the monitor had been removed from clinical service for investigation.Alarm annunciations were recorded by the system.No evidence was found that art alarms were disabled.The tss reviewed the available audit data, alarm generation could be verified and a device hardware or software malfunction could not be confirmed.Multiple ¿pause all alarms¿ events, alarm acknowledgements, and transitions into pause/standby mode were identified within the reviewed period.Art alarm limits were modified during the investigation period, including changes of the art lower limit (65, 60, 50, 55 mmhg).Frequent art signal quality related events (art no pulse, art signal disturbance, art range?) were also documented.These findings indicate that alarm configuration changes, alarm pause functions, workflow-related actions and/or intermittent invasive pressure signal quality issues may have contributed to the reported perception that no alarm occurred.A philips field service engineer (fse) went onsite to further evaluate the unit.The fse could not confirm the alleged malfunction as performance verification and testing produced no malfunction.The alarms were set according to the configuration.The fse stated the analysis by tss - alarm behavior corresponds to configuration.Based on the information available in the case and the logs provided by the customer, the unit operated as designed.There was no product malfunction.If additional information is received, the complaint file will be reopened for further investigation.
|