MAUDE MDR 23794926

MDR report key
23794926
Report number
3027394506-2025-00048
Event key
0
Event type
3
Date of event
2025-11-14
Date received
2025-12-12
Adverse event
1
Product problem
0
Patients in event
0
Reporter occupation
100
Health professional
1
Initial report to FDA
0
Event location
0

Manufacturer Contact#

Contact
BDX FAHMY RAZAK - MDR
Address
155 NORTH MCCARTHY BOULEVARD MILPITAS CA 95035 US
Phone
877-877-8772
Report source
M

Devices#

Seq, Brand, Generic table
SeqBrandGenericManufacturerProduct codeModelCatalogLotPMA510(k)ImplantEvaluatedAvailability
140140BD FACS? SAMPLE PREP ASSISTANT IIIAUTOMATED PIPETTING, DILUTING AND SPECIMEN PROCESSING FOR FLOW CYTOMETRYBECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, BD BIOSCIENCESPER647205NN

Patients#

Sequence, Received, Treatment table
SequenceReceivedTreatmentOutcome
12025-12-120R

Event Narratives#

D

Patient 0

IT WAS REPORTED THAT WHILE WASHING THE FILTER OF THE BD FACS? SAMPLE PREP ASSISTANT III, LIQUID SPLASHED INTO THE USER?S EYES. THE USER WAS NOT WEARING THE APPROPRIATE PPE AS SPECIFIED IN THE IFU, AND THERE WAS NO PRODUCT FAILURE ASSOCIATED WITH THE INSTRUMENT. THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE INITIAL REPORTER: THE USER REPORTED THAT THE PREVIOUS WEEK, DURING USER MAINTENANCE, WHEN THE FILTER OF THIS EQUIPMENT WAS OPENED, SHE WAS SPLASHED WITH LIQUID FROM THE EQUIPMENT'S WASTE PRODUCTS INTO HER EYES. THE USER REPORTED THIS AND FOLLOWED THE INSTITUTION'S PROCEDURES FOR THIS TYPE OF SITUATION, BUT IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE ENGINEER'S VISIT THAT THE INCIDENT WAS REPORTED TO BD. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE TECHNICAL SERVICES TEAM: THE INCIDENT OCCURRED WHEN THE USER WAS WASHING THE INSTRUMENT?S FILTER, AFTER IT HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE EQUIPMENT. IT IS REPORTED THAT THE USER REMOVED THE FILTER WITHOUT ANY ISSUES, AND WHILE WASHING IT UNDER RUNNING WATER, LIQUID SPLASHED INTO THEIR EYES. THE USER WAS NOT WEARING SAFETY GLASSES. THERE ARE NO COMPLAINTS OF PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE INSTRUMENT OR BD DISPOSABLES. THERE WERE NO IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE USER AT THE TIME OF THE EVENT; HOWEVER, USER IS CURRENTLY ON PROPHYLACTIC MEDICATION DUE TO WHAT HAPPENED.

N

Patient 0

H.3. A DEVICE EVALUATION IS ANTICIPATED, BUT HAS NOT YET BEGUN. UPON COMPLETION OF THE INVESTIGATION, A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT WILL BE FILED.

D

Patient 0

IT WAS REPORTED THAT WHILE WASHING THE FILTER OF THE BD FACS? SAMPLE PREP ASSISTANT III, LIQUID SPLASHED INTO THE USER?S EYES. THE USER WAS NOT WEARING THE APPROPRIATE PPE AS SPECIFIED IN THE IFU, AND THERE WAS NO PRODUCT FAILURE ASSOCIATED WITH THE INSTRUMENT. THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE INITIAL REPORTER: THE USER REPORTED THAT THE PREVIOUS WEEK, DURING USER MAINTENANCE, WHEN THE FILTER OF THIS EQUIPMENT WAS OPENED, SHE WAS SPLASHED WITH LIQUID FROM THE EQUIPMENT'S WASTE PRODUCTS INTO HER EYES. THE USER REPORTED THIS AND FOLLOWED THE INSTITUTION'S PROCEDURES FOR THIS TYPE OF SITUATION, BUT IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE ENGINEER'S VISIT THAT THE INCIDENT WAS REPORTED TO BD. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE TECHNICAL SERVICES TEAM: THE INCIDENT OCCURRED WHEN THE USER WAS WASHING THE INSTRUMENT?S FILTER, AFTER IT HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE EQUIPMENT. IT IS REPORTED THAT THE USER REMOVED THE FILTER WITHOUT ANY ISSUES, AND WHILE WASHING IT UNDER RUNNING WATER, LIQUID SPLASHED INTO THEIR EYES. THE USER WAS NOT WEARING SAFETY GLASSES. THERE ARE NO COMPLAINTS OF PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE INSTRUMENT OR BD DISPOSABLES. THERE WERE NO IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE USER AT THE TIME OF THE EVENT; HOWEVER, USER IS CURRENTLY ON PROPHYLACTIC MEDICATION DUE TO WHAT HAPPENED.

N

Patient 0

H.6 INVESTIGATION SUMMARY: BASED ON THE INVESTIGATION RESULTS, THE REPORTED ISSUE OF A SPLASH OF LIQUID INTO THE USER'S EYES WAS CONFIRMED. THE POTENTIAL CAUSE WAS DETERMINED TO BE A LACK OF USER PROTECTIVE PERSONAL EQUIPMENT (PPE). THERE IS NO ISSUE WITH THE INSTRUMENT OR THE USER MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES. THIS ISSUE DID NOT IMPACT PATIENT DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT, AND NO USER OR PATIENT WAS HARMED OR INJURED. THE COMPLAINT SAMPLE WAS NOT REQUESTED TO BE RETURNED BECAUSE NO PARTS WERE REPLACED. DEVICE HISTORY RECORD REVIEW WAS NOT REQUIRED AS THE COMPLAINT WAS CONFIRMED THROUGH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE INVESTIGATION.