In response to this report resmed contacted the daughter to gather additional information.Resmed was informed the reason for her contacting the manufacturer was that she no longer wanted to work with her durable medical equipment (dme) provider and was requesting resmed to refund her $ for the last 3 months of the poc device lease.The daughter was informed that she would need to work with the dme in regards to the refund however, based on the nature of the event, resmed requested the return of the device for an engineering investigation.The daughter denied the request and the device as not returned for a formal investigation.A review of resmed service history records indicated the device was serviced by resmed for a reported poc oxygen concentrator output of low o2 (79%) in (b)(6) 2017, two months after the time of death.At the time the device was serviced and returned to sender there was no report of the device causing or contributing to a patient death.Resmed contacted the patients' dme in (b)(6) 2017 to obtain further information regarding the event.The dme was not aware of any allegation that the device contributed to the death.Based on the information provided to resmed at this time we are not able to determine or deny a connection between the reported death and the poc device.If the device is returned and the investigation completed or resmed obtains additional information then a follow up report with additional information will be provided.Per the activox operators manual, indication for use: the device is not life supporting nor life sustaining.Resmed reference (b)(4).(b)(4).Owner would not release for investigation.
|
Resmed was made aware of a portable oxygen concentrator (poc) patient passing away.Per the reporter (patient's daughter), the (b)(6) male was using the poc while walking outside.The patient stated he was not getting enough oxygen, sat down and fainted.Emergency services were called and the patient was transported to the hospital.The patient later died at the hospital.
|