Manufacturing site evaluation: product was returned to aid in the investigation.Lot information is currently unknown.Initial review of the returned samples presented the following details; chemical indicator ink was present on the filters, although applied inconsistently and of a lighter coating (thinner in laydown).Chemical indicators did show a transition in color where indicator ink was thicker and uniform.After completion of initial sample review, the samples were then placed into a tabletop steam sterilizer and processed to test for additional color change under controlled conditions.The testing did not result in any additional color change or transition.Testing could not be performed against factory retains due to lot number unavailability.Similarly, dhr review could not occur due to the unknown lot number.Complaint review for this failure mode did not indicate a systemic issue and suggests this failure was limited to the returned product.Current process controls for us751 manufacture include; in-process sampling occurring at 30-minute intervals.Sample testing utilizes tabletop steam sterilizers and monitors for ink laydown inconsistencies.Finished good testing in a simulated point of use environment (hospital sterilizer testing).Final review of retains and dhr by representatives of both operations and quality assurance.In conclusion the failure was a result of inconsistent chemical ink laydown, in which areas that did not receive an adequate amount of the chemical indicator did not transition as intended at the point of use.Inconsistencies in ink laydown may be attributed to in-process line clear failures or failure to adequately clean the ink rollers during regular intervals.This complaint is currently isolated and the failure mode will be monitored for recurrence through the crosstex complaint system and product risk management files.
|