Hospital recovers damage caused by devices from Philips

The UMC Utrecht 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. This is what several directly involved say independently of each other NRC

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

Philips announced a safety notice for various types of sleep apnea and ventilators on June 14, 2021. A Philips spokesperson in the Netherlands calls the report “one of the largest in the medical technology industry. There is no frame of reference.”

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. They contain sound-absorbing foam that can crumble and potentially release toxic chemicals. Patients could inhale these.

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’.

On July 1, 2021, a year ago, the hospital wrote a letter to Philips. 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.

Philips lets Jula breathe pg. E6-8

ttn-32