Search Results

The Giraffe Incubator Carestation is an Infant Incubators provide heat in a controlled manner to neonates who are unable to thermo-regulate based on their own physiology. They achieve this by providing an enclosed temperature controlled environment to the infant. This device may incorporate a Servo Controlled Oxygen Delivery System. This is indicated to provide a stable oxygen concentration within the infant compartment at the value set by the operator (21-65%).

The Giraffe OmniBed Carestation is a combination of an infant incubator and an infant warmer. The device can be operated as an incubator or as a warmer and can transition from one mode to the other on user's demand. It cannot be operated in both modes at the same time. Incubators and warmers provide heat in a controlled manner to neonates who are unable to thermo- regulate based on their own physiology. Incubators provide an enclosed, temperature-controlled environment and warmers provide infrared heat in an open environment. They may also be used for short periods of time to facilitate the neonate's transition from the uterus to the external environment. This device may incorporate a Servo Controlled Oxygen Delivery System. This is indicated to provide stable oxygen concentration within the infant compartment at the value set by the operator (21-65%).

The Giraffe OmniBed Carestation is a device that can function as an incubator (in the closed mode) or as an infant radiant warmer (in the open mode) based on the user's selection.

Incubators and warmers provide heat in a controlled manner to neonates who are unable to thermo-regulate based on their own physiology.

In the closed bed mode of operation, the bed functions as an incubator, maintaining the infant's temperature by circulating heated air within the enclosed bed compartment. Warm air is circulated through the closed patient compartment. The operator may select either the air or skin temperature control method. Depending on the control method selected, heat is regulated based on either the air temperature or the infant's skin temperature compared to the operated selected control temperature. Physical access to the patient is obtained through the side portholes or by opening one of the side doors.

In the open bed mode, this bed operates like a conventional open, radiantly heated infant bed. Radiant heat from an infrared heat source is focused onto the bed to warm the patient. The Giraffe OmniBed Carestation incorporates an optional weighing scale, Servo O2, Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) & Shuttle, Mounting Accessories Rail and Shelves and Storage drawers.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the "Giraffe Incubator Carestation CS1" (K213553). The submission seeks to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, the "Giraffe Omnibed Carestation CS1" (K152814), specifically concerning modifications to porthole and wall latches.

Device Description:
The device, Giraffe OmniBed Carestation CS1, is a combination of an infant incubator and an infant radiant warmer. It provides a temperature-controlled environment for neonates. The modified device primarily features changes to the porthole latch design (from "press to open" to "turn to open") and the wall latches (addition of a secondary "catch" mechanism on the north side). The overall dimensions have also slightly increased in width from 66 cm to 68 cm.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The provided document defines acceptance criteria through compliance with voluntary standards and system performance metrics, and the reported device performance is that it meets these criteria.

Study Proving Acceptance Criteria:

The study proving the device meets the acceptance criteria is a series of non-clinical performance and reliability bench tests and a summative usability study.

1. Compliance with Voluntary Standards:

   • The device was designed and tested for compliance with:
     • AAMI / ANSI ES60601-1:2005/(R)2012 And A1:2012, C1:2009/(R)2012 And 1. A2:2010/(R)2012 (Consolidated Text) Medical Electrical Equipment - Part 1: General Requirements For Basic Safety And Essential Performance (IEC 60601-1:2005, MOD)
     • AAMI / ANSI / IEC 60601-1-2 Edition 4.0 2014-02 Medical Electrical Equipment --Part 1-2: General Requirements For Basic Safety And Essential Performance --Collateral Standard: Electromagnetic Disturbances -- Requirements And Tests
     • IEC 60601-2-19 Edition 2.1 2016-04. CONSOLIDATED VERSION Medical Electrical Equipment - Part 2-19: Particular Requirements For The Basic Safety And Essential Performance Of Infant Incubators
     • IEC 60601-2-21 Edition 2.1 2016-04, CONSOLIDATED VERSION Medical Electrical Equipment - Part 2-21: Particular Requirements For The Basic Safety And Essential Performance Of Infant Radiant Warmers [Including: Amendment 1 (2016)]
   • Manufactured under Quality System Regulations of 21CFR 820 and ISO 13485, with quality assurance measures including:
     • Risk Analysis
     • Requirements Reviews
     • Design Reviews
     • Performance Testing (Verification)
     • Safety/Reliability Testing (Verification)
     • Summative Usability Testing (Validation)

2. Verification and Validation Testing (Non-Clinical Testing):

   • Evaluations: Safety and effectiveness of the modified wall and porthole latches were evaluated using controlled performance and reliability testing under worst-case conditions.
   • Test Methods:
     • Performance Tests: Rough Handling Testing (Ascending Step Shock, Descending Step Shock, Door Frame Shock as per IEC 60601-1 Cl 15.3.5a, 15.3.5b, 15.3.5c and IEC 60601-2-19), Check for Rough surfaces, sharp corners and edges (IEC 60601-1 Clause 9.3), Humidifier Operating Time, Air Velocity, Opening and Closing of E/W Doors and South Wall, Opening of Doors and Portholes, E/W Doors latch mechanism and N/S Walls as Barriers (IEC 60601-2-19 Clause 201.9.8.3.101), Porthole latch mechanism as Barriers (IEC 60601-2-19 Clause 201.9.8.3.101), Removing of E/W Doors and infant compartment design, E/W Doors remains secure even if the North Wall and South Wall receptacle is not latched, Maximum sidewall upright angle.
     • Reliability Tests: Porthole Latch: Over Torque Test; Wall Latch and Porthole Latch: Vibration / Reliability Threshold Test; Porthole Latch: Push Load; Porthole Latch: Pull Load for Cleaning; Porthole Latch: Open Close Cycles of Knob Latch; Porthole Latch: Cleaning Pull Cycles of Knob Latch; Wall Latch: Handling Load Test; Wall Latch: Pull and Push Loads with chemical exposure; Wall Latch: Handling Load on Snap; Wall Latch: Pinch Action Open Close Cycles; Wall Latch: Push Close Cycles (Push to Close from Secondary Latch Position to Primary Latch Position).
   • Results: The proposed device "successfully completed all testing per our quality system," and the evaluations "substantiate the performance of the new latches in worst-case conditions."

3. Human Factors Analysis (Summative Usability Study):

   • Study Purpose: To evaluate the modified wall and porthole latches and their instructions for use.
   • Results: The study "successfully completed a summative usability study," and "There were no findings from the summative usability testing that led to changes in wall latches, porthole latches, or on-product labeling. The latch modifications did not introduce any new risks or use-related issues."

Detailed Information for the Study:

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

• Test Set Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for each individual bench or reliability test. The tests were performed on the "modified wall and porthole latches," implying testing on the physical components of the device. For the Summative Usability Study, the sample size of users is not provided in this document.
• Data Provenance: The studies are laboratory and human factors evaluations conducted by the manufacturer (GE Healthcare). The data is presumably retrospective in nature, as it's part of the design verification and validation process for a modified existing product. Country of origin for the data is not specified but would be where GE Healthcare conducts its product testing.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

• This information is not provided in the document. For bench/reliability tests, "experts" typically refers to test engineers and quality control personnel, whose qualifications are inherent to their roles in device manufacturing and verification. For the human factors study, the qualifications of the "users" involved are not detailed.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:

• Not applicable in the context of engineering bench and reliability testing or human factors usability studies as described. These are objective tests against predefined specifications or assessments of user interaction, not expert consensus for diagnostic interpretation.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:

• Not applicable. This is not an AI-assisted diagnostic device, and no MRMC study was conducted. The device is a neonatal incubator/warmer; the changes are mechanical (latches) and do not involve "human readers" or "AI assistance."

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done:

• Not applicable. This device is not an algorithm, and its performance involves direct physical interaction and function.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):

• Ground truth for the engineering tests was based on objective performance specifications derived from international standards (IEC 60601 series) and internal quality system requirements. For example, "Temp Control accuracy: ± 1.0ºC" is an objective metric.
• For the Human Factors Analysis, the ground truth was the observed user interaction and direct feedback regarding the usability and safety of the modified latches. The absence of findings that required design changes indicates that the user experience met safety and usability requirements.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This device does not use machine learning or AI models, so there is no "training set."

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

• Not applicable for the same reason as above.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Giraffe Incubator Carestation is an Infant Incubator. Incubators provide heat in a controlled manner to neonates who are unable to thermo-regulate based on their own physiology. They achieve this by providing an enclosed temperature controlled environment to the infant. This device may incorporate a Servo Controlled Oxygen Delivery System. This is indicated to provide a stable oxygen concentration within the infant compartment at the value set by the operator (21-65%).

The Giraffe Incubator Carestation is an updated version of the cleared predicate Giraffe Incubator. The Giraffe Incubator Carestation is an enclosed infant bed, which provides thermal support for infants who are unable to provide for their own heat requirements. The device maintains the infant's temperature by circulating heated air within the closed bed compartment. The operator may select either the air or skin temperature control method. Depending on the control method selected, heat is regulated based on either the air temperature or the infant's skin temperature compared to the operator selected control temperature. Physical access to the patient is obtained through the side portholes or by opening one of the side doors. The Giraffe Incubator Carestation incorporates an optional weighing scale, Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) & Shuttle, Mounting Accessories Rail and Shelves and Storage drawers.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "Giraffe Incubator Carestation CS1", which is an updated version of a predicate device, the "Giraffe Incubator". The focus of the modifications is primarily on updating the user interface from a graphical monochrome display to a digital touchscreen.

Based on the provided document, the device in question does not involve AI or machine learning algorithms, and therefore, the acceptance criteria and study information related to those aspects are not applicable. The device is a neonatal incubator, and the modifications are related to its hardware and user interface.

Consequently, many of the requested points regarding AI/ML device performance and studies cannot be answered from this document.

Here's what can be extracted:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The document does not provide a specific table of acceptance criteria with detailed performance metrics in the way one would for an AI/ML diagnostic device with quantifiable sensitivity, specificity, etc. Instead, it refers to compliance with voluntary standards and quality assurance measures for the modified device to demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device.

The "reported device performance" is essentially the device's adherence to these standards and the successful verification and validation activities.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

This information is not provided in the document as it is not an AI/ML study. The testing described is verification and validation of hardware and software components, not a clinical trial on a 'test set' of patient data in the typical sense.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

This information is not provided and is not applicable for a device that is not an AI/ML diagnostic tool. Validation activities would involve engineers and testers.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

This information is not provided and is not applicable.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done

This information is not applicable. The device is an incubator, not a standalone algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

For the hardware and software modifications, the "ground truth" would be engineering specifications, established medical device safety and performance standards (like IEC 60601-2-19), and the functional requirements derived from the predicate device. These are verified through various testing methodologies described (module verification, system verification, etc.). It's not a clinical 'ground truth' in the diagnostic sense.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable as there is no mention of a training set, the device is not an AI/ML product.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

This information is not applicable as there is no mention of a training set, the device is not an AI/ML product.

In summary, the provided document describes a 510(k) submission for an updated medical device (a neonatal incubator) with hardware and user interface modifications, not an AI/ML-driven device. Therefore, most of the detailed questions related to AI/ML study design and performance metrics found in your request are not addressed by this document. The safety and effectiveness are established through compliance with existing standards and verification/validation testing against the predicate device.

Ask a specific question about this device