Search Results

Medline Hand Protectors and Finger Control Mitts may be used with either a wheelchair or a bed. They are intended to help protect the patient who might possibly harm themselves or others if the hands and fingers are not restricted. May be used with stroke patients to help prevent contracture or to help fingers in rehabilitation. Effectively helps minimize the possibility of the patient removing catheters and IV tubes and helps prevent scratching and itching.

These products are designed for use with a carefully defined medical treatment program which addresses (but is not limited to) restorative nursing, patient release, and pressure sore prevention. Aggressive, agitated or restless patients require increased monitoring and a systematic review and evaluation of both their physical and psychological status.

Medline Patient Safety Products are intended to be used for those patients suffering from temporary medical related cognitive deficits, for agitated patients, to help protect patients from harming themselves or others, to help prevent patients from removing or disabling other medical devices or equipment (catheters, IV lines, etc.), or to help prevent patients from removing, scratching or picking wound sites, incisions, stitches or bandages.

Medline Hand Protectors and Finger Control Mitts are not intended for use with stretchers, on toilets or shower chairs or in the shower or tub, and should always be secured to the movable portion of the bed frame, never to the side rails.

Medline Patient Safety Products are not intended for use in a motorized vehicle, as they are not designed to withstand the force of a crash. Medline Patient Safety Products are not intended for home use.

These devices are for use in hospitals and/or nursing homes to help maximize patient safety and are not intended to preclude good nursing care and common sense.

Device Description

Medline Hand Protectors and Finger Control Mitts are designed for use with either a bed or wheelchair. They are intended to help protect the patient who might possibly harm themselves or others if the hands and fingers are not restricted. Medline Hand Protectors and Finger Control Mitts may be used with stroke patients to help prevent contracture or to help fingers in rehabilitation. They can effectively help minimize the possibility of the patient removing catheters and I.V. tubes and help prevent scratching and itching. They are made of cotton, canton flannel or Koolnit ™ and are secured by polyester web straps.

AI/ML Overview

This document is a Safety and Effectiveness Summary (510(k) submission) for Medline Hand Protectors and Finger Control Mitts. It is a pre-market submission to the FDA to demonstrate that a device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device.

Key takeaway: This document describes a literature review and claims "substantial equivalence" to predicate devices marketed prior to May 28, 1976. It does not present a de novo study or clinical trial with acceptance criteria, reported performance, or other specific details like sample sizes, expert ground truth, or MRMC studies that would typically be found in a study proving a device meets acceptance criteria for a novel AI/medical device.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill the request as it pertains to a modern study proving device meets acceptance criteria because this document is describing a different type of regulatory submission (a 510(k) based on substantial equivalence) for a device that was legally marketed prior to 1976.

Based on the provided text, here's what I can extract and what is explicitly missing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

Acceptance Criteria (Inferred from 510(k) context)	Reported Device Performance (Inferred from 510(k) context)
Safety: Device does not pose undue risks (e.g., fractures, nerve damage, strangulation) when used correctly.	The document extensively discusses potential complications from misuse but argues that when "used correctly and for indicated circumstances," protective restraints provide benefits and that existing literature supports their safe use. It emphasizes the importance of proper application, monitoring, and patient selection.
Effectiveness: Device performs its intended function (e.g., restricting hand/finger movement, preventing self-harm, preventing removal of medical devices).	The document states the devices "effectively helps minimize the possibility of the patient removing catheters and IV tubes and helps prevent scratching and itching." It also states they help protect patients who might harm themselves or others and can prevent contracture or aid rehabilitation in stroke patients.
Substantial Equivalence: Device has the same intended use and technological characteristics as a predicate device and raises no new questions of safety or effectiveness.	The core of the 510(k) submission is that the devices "have been legally marketed prior to the date of this submission, and, in fact, prior to May 28, 1976. The intended use and claims, technological features, materials and physical and mechanical specifications have not been changed." This is the basis for claiming substantial equivalence, implying they meet the same safety and effectiveness profile as previously marketed equivalent devices.

Missing Information (Not provided in the document for a de novo study):

Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. This is a literature review, not a new clinical study with a test set.
Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. No new ground truth was established for a test set in this 510(k). The "ground truth" relied on previously published medical literature and regulatory guidance.
Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.
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 device is a physical restraint, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or therapeutic device involving human readers.
If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This device is a physical restraint, not an algorithm.
The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): The "ground truth" for the safety and effectiveness claims is derived from medical literature, FDA literature, and company documents concerning safety and effectiveness information for protective restraints (as cited in Section 2.0 and CITATION). It's based on general understanding and studies of the broader category of protective restraints through a literature review.
The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This isn't an AI/machine learning device with a training set.
How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a Question

Ask a specific question about this device

Page 1 of 1