|
Follow-up #1 17 nov 2019: corrected data: -lot number of device.Added data: -expiration of device -device manufacture date.Additional incident information received: -on (b)(6) 2018, a user facility adverse event report was received from bfarm.It provided the following information regarding the incident (translated from german): "both camino probes show extreme differences of the icp in comparison to already existing measure." based on the incident information provided by the reporters as well as examination of the returned device, natus has completed its investigation.The investigation included: -evaluation of the actual device -review of complaints history -device history record review -review of past capas/capa determination.Results: -the returned device showed evidence of use.The device was functionally tested and the catheter failed one performance test, transducer shock.This test is performed by impacting or shocking the distal end of the catheter which contains the pressure sensing transducer.During the test, the pressure dropped at impact but then returned to the test point.It was also noted that the potentiometer, used to set the device to ambient pressure prior to use, was overly sensitive, however, the device was able to be adjusted for use.-based on the complaint description, a review of complaints was performed using the following key words "integ-reading" in the search criteria.The review of catheter complaints from (b)(6) 2016 through (b)(6) 2018 found three (3) confirmed complaints during this time.-the dhr for the catheter was reviewed and no anomalies that could be associated with the complant incident were observed.-a review of capas initiated within the past 24 months were reviewed to determine of any capas were generated specifically related to the customer's complaint.The review found zero (0) capas where the scope is related to this complaint incident.Based on incident rate and assessed risk captured in the risk management file, no capa initation required while the device did exhibit the ability to send erroneous pressure readings, it is not likely that the transducer would experience shock during use (likely during insertion).In addition, after the impact, the catheter continued to provide an acceptable measurement.However, it is possible that the catheter performance contributed to the complaint and thus the complaint is confirmed.Due to the low incident rate, no further action will be taken, and, the complaint is now considered closed.
|