|
The customer reported, per the original information received on (b)(6) 2026: "we will be arranging the delivery of the below-mentioned devices for investigation, as they have been involved in an incident of suspected patient harm." on august 10, 2026 masimo received additional information that a "baby was born on the (b)(6) 2026 at 18:10 via spontaneous vaginal delivery.Born in good condition, subsequently collapse at 20 minutes of live and passed away at 20:10.Masimo radical7 bedside pulse co-oximeter never picked up the baby oxygen saturation and the heart rate before and after the collapse.The heart rate picked up by the machine was not consistent with what was auscultated with the stethoscope (heart rate picked up by machine well below 100 bpm, auscultated with stethoscope 135 bpm)." natural birth, mum arrived at 4pm and delivered at 6pm.Mum has quite severe anxiety, reports from nurses were that mum felt quite uncontrolled.
|
|
Other text: the returned device was evaluated.All alarm conditions were audible and visual, not distorted or raspy.The device was able to obtain measurements with all enabled parameters.A fluke biomedical index 2 simulator was utilized for spo2 and pulse rate testing, both the manual and preset simulation tests passed.There were no product performance issues identified relating to spo2 and pulse rate.The device was further tested for 1 hour using the neonatal setting and the fluke tester without any issues.Measurements were stable without loss throughout the duration of testing.Trend data was downloaded and reviewed, the reported date for the event was not recorded in the trend data.The customer continued to use the radical-7 after the date of event, which resulted in the overwriting of the trend data.The complaint regarding accuracy and obtaining measurements was not replicated during testing.E1.Initial reporter zip code exceeded the maximum allowable characters, zip code is as follows: (b)(6).
|