|
The following were reviewed as part of this investigation: patient severity, trend analysis, applicable previous investigation(s), sample (if available), and applicable fmea documents.Based on a review of this information, the following was concluded: the complaint of a damaged vessel dilator was confirmed; however, the root cause was not identified.The product returned for evaluation was one photograph depicting a vessel dilator.Usage residues were observed throughout the device and a syringe was attached to the luer adapter.The dilator shaft was either broken or detached from the luer portion of the device.The tip of the dilator exhibited curved shape memory.While damage was obvious in the returned photograph, inspection of that photograph was insufficient to identify the cause of the damage.Consequently this complaint is confirmed as ¿cause unknown¿ at this time.A lot history review (lhr) of recz0587 showed no other similar product complaint(s) from this lot number.
|
|
The rn that placed the picc reported, "uneventful insertion up to the point when i removed the inner core from micro introducer to insert picc.The gray, needle like part remained in the sheath and was completely apart from its twist hub.I was able to grab it and remove from the sheath.The pt was not harmed during event.".
|