[News] RECALL THREAD-- IMPORTANT PHILIPS DREAMSTATION & SYSTEM ONE USERS

[DaveCar]

Its strange that they need to replace so many, when it's just the airbox that is the problem. Perhaps some models are more difficult, but a DS Pro like mine would be a 10 minute job with one screwdriver. Heck, all the screws are matching even.. this would be a no brainer job for a tech. They could probably have a ton of plastic airboxes made quicker than complete units with pc board etc.

[btreger]

Its strange that they need to replace so many, when it's just the airbox that is the problem.  Perhaps some models are more difficult, 

Very true, but remember they have 18 different machines that all have the same problem (foam)

[WakeUpTime]

For those that are good at analyzing permutations and combinations, perhaps you could shed some light on the subject.  If Philips does replace 1M faulty DS1 devices with 1M new DS2 devices, they'll have 1M DS1 foam-fixed devices available as a "float" for other DS1 users who didn't get a replacement, or even non-DS1 device owners.  For those particular "float" replacement devices, I would think Philips would fully refurbish them rather than merely replace the foam - add a firmware update, etc. - as they can't take the risk of replacing a newer production DS1 with an older production (now "fixed") DS1.  

So if Philips, each week produces 80,00 new DS2s (peak production rate beginning 2022), therefore satisfying 80,000 DS1 faulty-device owners, Philips simultaneously refurbishes 80,000 recently returned DS1 models to replace other faulty-foam DS1 devices, shipping them out each week.  (Note:  The actual refurbishment turnaround speed is unknown.  Their refurbishment production rate may be significantly lower, and it's likely to take place in several countries.)

Therefore, of the 3-4M recalled device owners, 1M get new DS2 replacements, 1M get "refurbished" DS1 devices that were recent returns.  We're then left with 1-2M recalled device owners with older machines.  That to me would be the most challenging devices to update.  The older series, and their various models within the series, require much more care and attention.  One little technician mistake on those 10 year old aged pieces of plastic shell and clip components might require a trip to the old inventory parts bin.

Philips' estimate below suggests that they can produce 26,000 DS2 devices each week for replacement at the moment.  Therefore approximately 100,000 DS1 device owners should be getting a replacement each month, at best beginning sometime in September.  It isn't until the beginning of 2022 that Philips suggests that they'll be producing 80,000/week, as their best case scenario.  There are approximately 2M faulty device owners in the U.S., and a total of 3-4M faulty-device owners world-wide.

"By the end of this year, Philips said it aims to triple its ability to manufacture repair kits and replace units, ramping up to 80,000 per week. However, the company was recently issued its second Class I recall, for a safety issue that could lower oxygen flow rates in certain hospital ventilators."

[btreger]

RE >above<

When we first started this thread the majority of respondents either said they would never use another PH machine again, or would only use a brand new one. No one wanted or trusted Philips with a refurbished one. The logic of your proposal does make mathematical sense, but I do not think there are too many users who would want to get somebody else's used refurbished machine. I could be wrong...... 

[fredepff]

So I bought my new DS Auto on 5/20/21. When I registered the serial number with the PR test the response came back that the machine was not included in the recall. Does that seem logical?

[Crimson Nape]

Hi fredepff! -
There are DreamStations 1 and 2. Only the DS1 is in the recall. Are you sure you don't have a DS2?

[WakeUpTime]

<< above >>

If the answer to the above is "no", and you indeed have a DS1 (not a DS2) device, then you likely put in the wrong serial number.  There was a software flaw in the Philips Recall Registration site, where we register the hardware flaw in our recalled devices.  

If the site receives an "O" instead of a "0" (or visa versa) for the device serial number, the recall site may incorrectly state that the device is NOT part of the recall.  It should instead say that you have entered an incorrect serial number.  I'm not sure if Philips eventually fixed that recall registration site flaw.

If you're indeed a DS2 owner, after you've finished celebrating not being part of the 3-4M recalled device community, please search out the DS2 threads for relevant information for your device.  They'll welcome your questions and contributions.  Alternatively, if you're a new DS1 owner, you're part of a very large recall group.  There is a great deal of information in this thread.  There are also some break-out threads on several focus subjects related to the Recall.  The Wiki (link below) provides a very good summary of events and documents too.

[Gideon]

In addition to the above some users entered the humidifier's serial number, guess what it wasn't recalled. Try again and make sure you have the machine's SN and not the humidifier.

[SingingSam]

WakeUpTime, regarding the new document (created 8/2/21 and modified 8/3/21), it contains significant new information.

First, consider this quote from their 7/8/21 "Supplemental clinical information for physicians and providers for specific CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and mechanical ventilator devices".

"Based on the test data and information available to date, Philips believes that most
degraded foam particulates are too big to be deeply inhaled. According to analysis
performed by Philips, the majority of particulates are of a size (>8 μm) that are unlikely to
penetrate into the deep lung tissue. Smaller particulates (<1-3 μm) are capable of diffusing
into deep lung tissue and deposit into the alveoli. During testing performed by an outside
laboratory on lab degraded foam, the smallest particulate size identified was 2.69 μm."

Next, this quote from the new document:

"According to an analysis performed by Philips, particles are of various sizes, however, the  
majority of particulates are of a size (>8 μm) that are unlikely to penetrate the deep lung  
tissue. During testing performed by an outside laboratory on lab degraded foam, the  
smallest particulate size captured by the bacteria filter was 2.69 μm. Additional testing  
is ongoing."

At first glance the new document's paragraph looks like a rehash of the old. But look again. In the July 8 document "the smallest particulate size identified was 2.69 μm". In the August 2 document "the smallest particulate size captured by the bacteria filter was 2.69 μm".

I take this to mean that the outside laboratory used a bacteria filter to trap particles. Then they counted the trapped particles and ranked them by size to determine that the majority were larger than 8 μm. The smallest particle they found trapped in the filter was 2.69 μm.

There is a world of difference between implying that the smallest particle size is 2.69 μm and saying that the smallest size trapped by the bacteria filter was 2.69 μm. It means that particles smaller than 2.69 μm could have been produced but, because they slipped through the bacteria filter, they weren't recognized, measured or counted. Which calls into question both the implication that the smallest particle size is 2.69 μm and the claim that the majority of particulates were larger than 8 μm. Regarding, the latter if they didn't count particles smaller than 2.69 μm then they don't have a complete view of the distribution of particulate sizes. A thousand untrapped particles smaller than 2.69 μm – imagine what that would do to the math!

The smaller the particle, the greater the biohazard. This new information is very bad news.

It may be observed that I don't know that particles smaller than 2.69 μm actually were produced, to which I reply in advance that we also don't know that smaller particles were not produced.

With Philips, the worse the news the slower it is released.

[WakeUpTime]

"It means that particles smaller than 2.69 μm could have been produced
but, because they slipped through the bacteria filter,

they weren't recognized, measured or counted."

Your above analysis of the details concerning particle size is significant.  

The information roll-out by Philips, along with its actions, reminds me of crisis management.  The information starts off light and optimistic, almost with a "we've got this".  As the weeks progress, we become more acceptable for the next layer of "bad news" and a fuller disclosure.  I suppose that's the preferred strategy for damage control for a significant crisis.  

That makes me question even more Philips' suggestion that they'll be producing 80,000 new DS2 devices per week at year-end, and fixing/replacing all faulty devices globally within 12 months.  Philips has further protected itself inside the Bacteria Filter updated document with "Additional testing is ongoing" - implying that even more "bad news" may soon be released as it publishes more testing results.

It's interesting how Philips seemed to slide in this August 2nd document update in a manor to suggest that the information was identical to what had been initially provided.  Many corporate documents have a creation/release date, except this one.  That may be a clever strategy to avoid publishing a separate retraction or clarification.