|
Investigation - evaluation: a review of the complaint history, device history record, documentation, instructions for use (ifu), manufacturing instructions, specifications, trends, and quality control was conducted during the investigation.The complaint device was not returned; therefore no physical examination could be performed.However, a document-based investigation was performed.There is no evidence to suggest the finished product was not made to specifications.Review of the device history record of the finished product shows no nonconforming events that could contribute to this failure mode.A complaint history search revealed that there were no other reported complaints for this lot number.Based on the information provided, no product returned, and the results of our investigation, a definitive root cause could not be determined.Per the quality engineering risk assessment, no further action is required.Monitoring will continue to be performed for similar complaints.
|
|
It was reported while placing a turbo-ject® single lumen over-the-wire power-injectable picc line in the left arm, the guide slid into the patient's flesh rather than the intended vein.This resulted in a small piece of metal remaining in situ, bruising at the site of placement and a follow-up appointment scheduled for monitoring.Additional information regarding the event and patient has been requested but not yet provided.As reported, the patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.
|