(06-28-2022, 10:47 AM)btreger Wrote: yahoo/finance


Philips says tests on recalled ventilators are' very encouraging'

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) -Independent tests on ventilators that Dutch health technology company Philips recalled last year because of possible health risks showed the problems were almost exclusively caused by unauthorized cleaning products, the company said on Tuesday.

"Inspection of over 60,000 machines in the U.S. has shown foam degradation in less than 0.5% of the users of the machines said had not been cleaned with ozone," Van Houten told Reuters in a telephone interview.

"With the use of ozone products, this goes up to 7% or 14 times higher. The correlation between the use of ozone and foam degradation that we assumed last year has been proven."

Philips says tests on recalled ventilators 'very encouraging' (yahoo.com)

Quote:The UMC Utrecht (Netherlands) has held electronics company Philips liable for “all damage and costs” that the hospital and its patients suffer as a result of problems with the company’s sleep apnea and respiratory equipment. Three other university hospitals, in Rotterdam, Groningen and Maastricht, are also considering holding the company liable. 

Also read the background story: Philips helps Jula breathe, but what is she getting into her lungs?

According to the American health care regulator FDA, this concerns 15 million devices worldwide. Philips expects to have to replace or repair 5.5 million devices. It is no coincidence that these four teaching hospitals are announcing or considering legal action. They house a Center for Home Respiration (CTB) where patients with serious lung and muscle diseases are treated. The staff helps them set up the ventilators and learn how to use them at home. The patients are vulnerable and partially or completely dependent on the devices for their ventilation. The CTB in Utrecht is the largest. In total, the centers use about 2,500 Philips devices that fall under the so-called ‘recall’.

There is a lack of advice from Philips to avoid possible health risks for patients, the manager of the heart and lung department writes on behalf of the hospital, despite the hospital having requested this several times. “This is unacceptable for UMC Utrecht.” The lack of ‘information, advice and instructions’ hinders the hospital ‘seriously in carrying out its duty of care for this vulnerable patient group’.

Philips does not want to respond substantively to the liability claim by UMC Utrecht.  The damage for which the hospital holds Philips liable focuses on, among other things, the working hours for processing and following up on the safety report, costs for corrective measures and ‘health damage to patients’. No amounts are mentioned in the letter. In the other three university hospitals, concrete discussions are currently being held with and between medical departments, lawyers and administrators, several sources report. The hospitals are considering legal action.

Quote:Philips had produced 2.7 million replacement devices and repair kits, and shipped 1.1 million. [...] The chip shortages and other supply chain problems forced Philips to push back the date for when the repair and replacement program will be completed to 2023.

(07-05-2022, 01:32 PM)btreger Wrote: << above 'Foam Test Results' video >>

(07-08-2022, 01:45 PM)sawinglogz Wrote: The FDA already has some pretty sharp people who will be combing through the data themselves, but it never hurts to point them in the right direction. They were already pretty unimpressed with Respironics' processes after their inspection.

Quote:(a) The introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food, drug, device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded.
(b) The adulteration or misbranding of any food, drug, device, or cosmetic in interstate commerce.
© The receipt in interstate commerce of any food, drug, device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded, and the delivery or proffered delivery thereof for pay or otherwise.
(d) The introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any article in violation of section 404 or 505.
(e) The refusal to permit access to or copying of any record as required by section 412 or 703; or the failure to establish or maintain any record, or make any report, required under section 412, 505(i) or (k), 512(a)(4)©, 512(j), (l), or (m), 515(f), or 519, or the refusal to permit access to or verification or copying of any such required record.
....
(g) The manufacture within any Territory of any food, drug, device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded.
.....

Quote:(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of this section², if any person commits such a violation after a conviction of him under this section has become final, or commits such a violation with the intent to defraud or mislead, such person shall be imprisoned for not more than three years or fined not more than $10,000, or both.