This is not true if they are under warranty or faulty they will replace them anytime and no limit on the amount. Now if it’s an issue that your sensor fell off then yes it’s considered a curtesy replacement and that 3 limit per 90 days. Make sure everyone is informed real well it seems like yours just fall off dude it heaps of issues. Something I have never experienced at least not with a G7 device.
I’m not sure why so many people are accusing the original poster of not knowing how to apply her G7s. For reference, we had numerous issues with G6 accuracy (false lows when in fact daughter was 400+) so we switched to G7. Literally have had 6 sensors/wearables in a row fail at the 4-day mark. Not a user issue, not a training issue - it’s a Dexcom issue. Our Endo said she is hearing this from many of her G7 patients lately. Been a pump/CGM user for over a decade - not a placement or barrier issue. Dexcom needs to step up their quality. So far, they have replaced all 6 sensors. So far, I’ve used the online support form for all 6 failures but I do plan to call and ask for second level support at Dexcom to emphasize concerns for so many failures at 4 days. Hopefully original poster has better luck and can get them replaced as they fail. Good luck.
Hi @heinzmeunier and welcome to the forum. Thanks for this information - I recently started the process of transitioning to the G7 so it’s good to know - forewarned is fairwarned, as they say.
Regarding training, @987jaj referred to it and I haven’t been contacted about that yet although Edgepark has my Rx on back order. Frankly I figured if you were just switching over from the G6 you simply read some materials, so the need for training is good to know as well. If I hadn’t read this and didn’t hear from anyone I might have just started on my own. Thanks j.
@heinzmeunier , @wadawabbit
Greetings and thanks for the tag. About DEXCOM training.
With older Dexcom CGMs the technology was simpler. Knowing if it was a bad transmitter or bad sensor, calling Dexcom for a replacement was simple, especially if you had been taught to read the dot pattern differences between bad sensor and bad transmitter.
With the G7’s integrated transmitter/sensor unit, learning which is failing is still important as part of the technical support loop. With integration, reading the CGM dot pattern is now more complex. Learning the entire AID algorithm and the CGM data interpretation has become a “whose married to whom”.
Example, what caused a recent LOW? was it too much insulin covering carbs caused by [1]over counting the carbs or [2] a high insulin to carb ratio (I:C) or [3] an over zealous correction factor triggered by the AID when CGM data tripped the algorithm to give a reduced auto correction was too much and caused the crash. Learning to read, interpret, and respond to the CGM data is not a read the the brochure or an online video.
How do you know your training is quality and complete?
I suppose my training will never be complete, I am always learning even if technology is static (as in “not changing, or stationary”), and, from my personal experience, technology is never static.
I looked online for additional G7 training and found some clinical staff support stuff but no training programs that I could identify from Dexcom, I am wondering specifically to what programs are you referring?
Training, in general requires a person to have a desire to learn and then the capacity to learn. Very early on in insulin pump availability and training, there always apparently valid stance that some percentage of people will not do well with new technology, either because they can’t learn it, or because they won’t want to. . So IMO training needs to be presented for basic literacy, for intermediate literacy (such as for clinicians) and then, ideally, a program for experts perhaps those who would go on to design and improve instruments such as CGM. It’s not a bad question to ask, e.g. if someone has training, but depending on the tone it could be received as a challenge to competency.
One of my responsibilities is to train technicians on calibration, and have 30 years experience with analog and digital controls, I/O communications, signal conditioners, and instruments in general. The biggest problems (IMO) with public use of a instrument used to make medical decisions is calibration, understanding uncertainty, and CGM lag. I stopped trying to share information on uncertainty on this forum and others, because it is a difficult concept to discuss in a “forum” setting. There are many situations where your CGM may be “100 mg/dL or more different” than a finger stick and still be perfectly fine by all clinical standards, as well as “accurate”. This issue among all others, tends to confuse people.
I haven’t had a reason or need to calibrate any of my last 20 (twenty) Dexcom G7 sensors. This alone tends to freak people out. This is especially freaky to people used to Medtronic’s iteration of CGM because Medtronic’s past sensors all required regular calibration. DEXCOM ONE doesn’t even allow calibrations by design and I do predict newer generations of Dexcom will likely prohibit calibrations altogether. My short strategy for not calibrating: for me if lag explains the differences, then no calibration, also I do hesitate to calibrate with a reference device that has it’s own uncertainty unless absolutely necessary, and I do give all my sensors 12 hours powered use before I even begin to pay attention to them.
your hypothetical question above leaves out a few additional considerations for “why is my CGM reading hypo” and the top 2 for me is Lag, and then interstitial fluid, specifically dehydration or compression. As an instrument specialist, my first reaction to any reading is to test the test, and not proceed until I know the sensor is “correct”, or at lease “believable”.
I recently had a odd hypoglycemic event, which I felt (my own senses) before my sensor sensed it, and for which I corrected with glucose and was fine while my CGM continued to scream “LOW” for an additional 35 minutes. Was the sensor at any time inaccurate? yes, if I am referencing blood sugar, my sensor inaccurately alarmed LOW while my blood sugar was fine. Was the sensor “broken” or malfunctioning at any time during the 45 minutes event? No, my sensor was not malfunctioning. Was the sensor inaccurate from an interstitial fluid reference? No my CGM was accurately alarming interstitial fluid for the entire event. Is this confusing? for some people, no doubt it is confusing. Asking Dexcom to replace my sensor because it read LOW while a finger stick read 135 mg/dL is not appropriate.
I think if folks have a desire and capacity to learn, then we should teach. Teach people to be able to make their own CGM from scraps if they really want to know. I think understanding calibration and lag is key to overall understanding and should be part of every CGM presentation. I think that at least for the next 4 years, CGM are not plug and play devices. I also think the manufacturers will eventually disable the ability to calibrate, at some point in time. I also acknowledge that many people don’t care what I think… so I try not to take myself too seriously. 
Continuing the discussion from Limit on Dexcom G7 Sensor Replacements:
The key I am espousing is training performed by CDCES employed by Dexcom as a clinical rep.
Those Dexcom employees have been the ones doing each of my training/ orientation sessions over the past 25 years.
How do I evaluate training? One of my “other duties as assigned” was teaching new nursing faculty to teach. I was taught how to evaluate instruction. Additionally, from a personal perspective, we’re all my questions answered with plausible answers.
The bottom line is many prescribers fail to the user has sufficient orientation to give a full and complete INFORMED CONSENT and is not floundering from lack of orientation.