Author name: Robert Packard

Safety Agency Mark: Is it required for medical electrical equipment?

3 Comments / IEC 60601 / By

This article explains when a safety agency mark is required for electrical medical equipment for products sold in the USA.

Safety Marks 1024x228 Safety Agency Mark: Is it required for medical electrical equipment?

What is a safety agency mark?

Examples of safety agency marks include UL, CSA, Intertek, SGS Q-mark, and other marks indicating that a recognized testing lab completed the electrical safety testing and the device passed the testing. Health Canada requires a safety agency mark to certify approval by a lab that is accredited by the Standards Council of Canada (SCC). However, device manufacturers frequently find it unclear what the requirements are in the USA for electrical medical equipment regarding a safety agency mark.

Leo Eisner’s explanation of the requirements for a safety agency mark in the USA

Leo Eisner of Eisner Safety was kind enough to answer this question. The simple answer is yes. In the US, there is a requirement for equipment in the workplace to have an NRTL Safety Agency Approval Mark for the applicable category on the device to meet OSHA requirements. The requirements for NRTL approval of electric equipment (or medical electrical equipment) are in 29 CFR 1910.303(a) and 29 CFR 1910.307(c). Because of these requirements, most electric equipment used in the workplace must be NRTL-approved. Biomeds maintain and track all the medical equipment in hospitals and clinical environments, and the biomeds usually insist upon an Agency Approval Mark. However, the biomeds may not be aware of the NRTL requirements.

What is an NRTL?

An NRTL is a Nationally Recognized Test Lab that is approved or authorized by Occupational Safety & Hazard Administration (OSHA) for specific device test standards (i.e., UL 60601-1 [National deviation version of IEC 60601-1, 2nd ed. medical electrical equipment standard] and/or AAMI ES 60601-1 [National deviation version of IEC 60601-1, ed 3.1], among many other standards) to allow a US Mark placed on approved devices that meet the applicable standard. Not all NRTL labs can test to the listed medical electrical standards for medical equipment to allow a US mark to be placed on devices. You must go to the OSHA NRTL site to verify that the test lab can issue a US mark. The lab’s link shows which standards each test lab can issue US Marks for.

Safety Agency Mark: Is it required for medical electrical equipment? Read More »

IFU validation is not a risk reduction – Deviation 7

1 Comment / Clinical Studies & Post-Market Surveillance, Validation / By

This article describes how to perform IFU validation before commercialization and how to conduct post-market surveillance to ensure that your IFU continues to be suitable as your user population and patient population expand.

IFU Validation and PMS IFU validation is not a risk reduction Deviation 7

Most companies create an IFU for a new product by plagiarism. They merely copy a competitor’s IFU and change the name. If a regulatory expert creates the IFU, the IFU will be nearly identical to the competitor IFU. However, if a marketing person creates the IFU, the IFU will explain how your product is different from the competitor’s product. Neither approach is practical.

Creating a risk-based IFU

EN ISO 14971:2012 identifies deviations between the ISO 14971:2007 international standard and the three EU Directives. However, deviation #7 is specific to labeling and instructions for use. Even if your product is not CE marked, you should be developing a risk-based approach to IFUs. The priority of risk controls is to eliminate and reduce risks by design, manufacture, and selection of materials. The second priority is to implement protective measures such as alarms to warn users of risks. The last priority for risk controls is to inform users of residual risks. The best practice is to utilize a risk traceability matrix to document each of the risk controls you implemented to eliminate and reduce the risks of hazards identified.

The EN version of ISO 14971 will not allow you to reduce risks quantitatively in your risk assessment for information provided to users about risks, because this type of risk control is not entirely effective. However, you are required to verify that each residual risk is disclosed to users in your IFU, and you must validate that your warnings, precautions, and contraindications are adequately identified such that users understand the residual risks. You are also required to determine any user training needed to ensure specified performance and safe use of your medical device in accordance with ISO 13485:2016, Clause 7.2.1d. Clause 7.2.2d) requires that your company ensure that user training is made available. Any user training you provide should also be validated for effectiveness.

When to perform IFU validation

Some companies ask physicians that helped them with product development review draft IFUs. However, these physicians are already familiar with your product, and your company, and they are highly skilled in the specific procedures your device will be used for. After your experts have made their final edits to your draft IFU, you now need a “fresh set of eyes.” The best approach is to validate the effectiveness of your IFU with potential users that don’t know you or your company. If your product requires animal performance testing or human clinical studies, you could use these studies to validate your IFU. However, I recommend conducting a simulated use study before conducting animal or human studies. Conducting a simulated use study before animal and human studies can prevent deviations from your documented protocols that were caused by the inadequate review of the IFUs.

Methods of IFU validation

The best method for validating your IFU is to perform a simulated use study or human factors study. The FDA published a human factors guidance document that can help you assess the risk of human factors and ergonomics. The FDA guidance requires that you identify your intended user population(s). For each individual population of users, you are required to have a minimum of 15 users for your study. If your product is not for specific indications, you may be able to select 15 users at a few sites randomly. However, if your device is intended for two different specialties, then you need 30 users–15 for each specialization.  I recommend recording a video of simulated use studies too. Videos identify small details that you might miss, and clips from the videos are useful in creating training videos for future users.

Gathering Post-Market Surveillance

Post-market surveillance is not just asking customers if they are satisfied. You need to continue to monitor adverse event databases, your complaint database, and any service records to determine if there are any new risks and to verify that the risks you identified were accurately estimated concerning severity and probability of occurrence of harm. Clinical studies and PMS are the only way you can gather data regarding the likelihood of occurrence of harm. When you design your post-market surveillance questions, make sure you include questions explicitly targeting the residual risks you identify in your IFU. You should also ask, “What indications do you use this device for. Specifically, please identify the intended diagnosis, treatment, and patient populations.” This wording is more effective than asking if a physician is using your product “off label.”

Revalidation of IFU after labeling changes

Changes to labeling and IFUs should always be considered design changes and may require revalidation. If the switch is in response to a complaint or CAPA, then you must revalidate the IFU and labeling to verify the effectiveness of your corrective action. Any validation should be documented, reviewed, and approved before implementation, and acceptance criteria should be determined ahead of time. Your acceptance criteria should be quantitative, so you can objectively determine if the change is valid or not. You might be able to copy your previous IFU validation protocol or simulated use protocol and simply repeat the validation precisely as you did before with new users. However, sometimes the reason why the IFU was not 100% effective in the past is that the risk you are addressing in the revised IFU was not evaluated adequately in the original simulated use protocol.

New webinar for risk-based IFU validation and PMS

If you want to learn more about using a risk-based approach to developing IFUs, validating IFUs, and performing post-market surveillance to monitor the effectiveness of your IFU, then please click on the webinar link below.

IFU Validation Webinar Button 300x62 IFU validation is not a risk reduction Deviation 7

If you are interested in ISO 14971 training, we were conducting a risk management training webinar on October 19, 2018.

IFU validation is not a risk reduction – Deviation 7 Read More »

DHF Required for a Class I Device? At least 67%…

5 Comments / Design Control / By

Is a DHF required appears to be a simple yes/no question? If you reword the question, however, you get a very different answer.

Is a DHF required DHF Required for a Class I Device? At least 67%...

If you ask, “how much less documentation is required for the design of a Class 1 device compared with a Class 2 device?” you get a very different answer. Instead of 0% (Yes, a DHF is required) of 100% (No DHF required), the answer is that you need 33% less documentation for the design of a Class 1 device.

The FDA shared a presentation on design controls in 2015.

In that presentation, the agency identified six Class 1 product classifications that require design controls, while thousands of Class 1 product classifications do not need design controls. Despite the lack of design controls, manufacturers must still maintain a procedure for design transfer, maintain an approved device master file with all the approved design specifications (i.e., design outputs), and design changes may still require revalidation before implementation.

Why is a DHF Required for Class 2, but Not for Class 1?

Class 1 devices are simple devices that are already on the market and have a history of clinical safety. Class 2 devices are generally more complex and present a moderate risk. Therefore, changes in the technological characteristics often present a higher risk for Class 2 devices. When you design a Class 1 device, you still have to determine what your design specifications will be. Again, you don’t need: 1) to review and approve design inputs, 2) a procedure to document your design process, 3) to document formal design reviews, and 4) to create a design plan.

In the 1997 guidance document for design controls, the FDA states that a design transfer procedure should include at least three basic elements:

  1. design and development procedures should consist of a qualitative assessment of the completeness and adequacy of the production specifications;
  2. procedures should ensure that all documents and articles which constitute the production specifications are reviewed and approved; and
  3. procedures should ensure that only approved specifications are used to manufacture production devices.

The first of these basic elements is not required for Class 1 devices because product specifications for most Class 1 devices are simple. The other two requirements are fundamental principles of document control and configuration management. Therefore, you still need a design transfer procedure for Class 1 devices, but you don’t need to include the first element that relies upon design and development procedures.

If you have a Class 1 device, you must still comply with labeling requirements (i.e., 21 CFR 820.120). If your device is sterile, you must still validate and re-validate the process in accordance with 21 CFR 820.75. Class 1 products also require a device master record (DMR) in accordance with 21 CFR 820.181.

What is Not DHF required?

Needed for Class I (67%)

  1. Approved Design Outputs
  2. Labeling Procedure
  3. Approved Labeling
  4. Sterilization Validation Procedure
  5. Sterilization Validation Protocol and Report
  6. Design Transfer Procedure
  7. Approved DMR
  8. Design Change Procedure

Needed for Class II and Class I requiring Design Controls (100%)

  1. Design Control Procedure
  2. Design Plan
  3. Approved Design Inputs
  4. Approved Design Outputs
  5. Labeling Procedure
  6. Approved Labeling
  7. Sterilization Validation Procedure
  8. Sterilization Validation Protocol and Report
  9. Design Transfer Procedure
  10. Evidence of at least 1 Design Review
  11. Approved DMR
  12. Design Change Procedure

Therefore, although you do not technically have to have a DHF for a Class 1 products, the difference between the two categories is the following elements:

  1. Design Control Procedure
  2. Design Plan
  3. Approved Design Inputs
  4. Evidence of at least 1 Design Review

When an FDA inspection occurs, the investigator will review your design control procedure and then audit your DHF in accordance with your design plan.

When you have a Class 1 device, you are not typically inspected unless there is a problem. When ORA inspectors perform an inspection for Class 1 devices, the inspector looks for evidence of items in the first list.

If you are interested in learning more about design history files (DHF), please check out our DHF webinar.

DHF Required for a Class I Device? At least 67%… Read More »

Checking adverse event history for your device and competitors

1 Comment / ISO 14971:2019 (Risk Management) / By

The article explains checking adverse event data for medical devices as part of design and development, risk management, and post-market surveillance.

TPLC Database Checking adverse event history for your device and competitors

When should you be checking adverse event history?

There are three times when you should be checking adverse event history:

  1. when you are planning a new or improved medical device, and you want to know how current devices on the market malfunction (design and development planning),
  2. when you are identifying hazards associated with a medical device as part of your risk management process, and
  3. when you are gathering post-market surveillance data about your device and competitor devices.

Where should you be checking adverse event history?

Most countries have some kind of database for gathering adverse event data for medical devices, but most of these databases are not open to the public. The most common question I am asked is, “How do you access the Eudamed database?” for reporting of adverse events in Europe. Unfortunately, you can’t access Eudamed. The Eudamed database is only available to competent authorities at this time. The primary publicly accessible database for adverse event reporting is the US FDA MAUDE database. The MAUDE database is also integrated with other FDA databases for 510k submissions and recalls. This combined database is called the Total Product Life Cycle database.

Are there other public databases for checking adverse event history?

Yes. The Therapeutic Good Administration (TGA) in Australia makes adverse event data publicly available. The TGA also has a national registry for implanted orthopedic devices that publishes an annual report. Other countries also have public registries.

When will checking adverse event data for Europe be possible?

The Eudamed database for Europe was created in 1999 by the German organization DIMDI. In 2000 the responsibility for the database was taken over by the European Commission. The latest update is that manufacturers will be responsible for updating the Eudamed database in the future as part of the new European Regulations. This requirement will be implemented during the next years. The database will also become accessible to the public.

When you collect post-market surveillance data, which data should you collect?

Searching for post-market surveillance data should be performed on a risk-based frequency. If you have a brand new device, a high-risk device, or a device that is implanted, post-market surveillance data should be reviewed frequently–either monthly or quarterly. The new European guidance document for clinical evaluation reports (MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4) requires that clinical evaluation reports be updated at least annually for these devices. It is also important that you collect post-market surveillance data for both your device and competitor products. Therefore, you should be reviewing all the publicly available adverse event databases. You should also be reviewing your complaint data, and you should be searching for journal articles that may include adverse event data–possibly associated with a clinical study.

Available Resources

If you want to learn more about post-market surveillance data collection, please visit our webinar page. There is also a procedure for Post-Market Surveillance (SYS-019).

Checking adverse event history for your device and competitors Read More »

MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4: How will your clinical evaluation change?

1 Comment / CE Marking, Clinical Studies & Post-Market Surveillance / By

Article overviews of the new MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4 for clinical evaluation of medical devices, including a quality plan to comply with the latest revision.

MEDDEV 271 rev 4 MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4: How will your clinical evaluation change?

What’s new in MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4 for clinical evaluations?

The third and fourth revisions both give manufacturers three choices: 1) a clinical literature review, 2) performing a clinical study, and 3) a combination of literature review and performing a clinical study. However, the fourth revision is completely re-written. The fourth edition is 19 pages longer, and it is now much harder to use the “literature only” route. The fourth revision includes stringent requirements for demonstrating equivalence between another device and your device. Therefore, many companies are now struggling to update their clinical evaluation reports to satisfy this new guidance document.

Overview of the content in MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4

The third and fourth revisions of the guidance both have a 5-stage process for clinical evaluations, but in the third revision, only articulated stages 1 through 3 as stages leading up to writing a clinical evaluation report. The figure in section 6.3 of revision four now identifies a planning Stage 0, and the writing of the clinical evaluation report is referred to as Stage 4. Therefore, there is a lot more detail describing the planning and report writing stages than there was in revision 3. In addition, Stage 2 (Appraisal of clinical data) has been expanded from a single page to eight pages.

Based upon the above changes, you can infer that Competent Authorities have been unsatisfied with the quality of clinical data being provided to support the essential requirements for safety and performance. In turn, Notified Bodies are expected to be much more critical of the data presented, and more guidance is provided to manufacturers. There is also much more guidance and more examples provided in the appendices, while the 12-page clinical evaluation checklist that was provided in revision three has been replaced by one page of bulleted items for Notified Bodies to consider.

Demonstration of equivalence

It is no longer sufficient to list several devices that are similar to your device and include those devices in your search of clinical literature. Now you may only select one device for equivalence. You must also provide a thorough analysis of equivalence with that device based on clinical, technical, and biological characteristics. This comparison includes providing drawings or pictures to compare the size, shape, and elements of contact with the body.

Updating clinical evaluations

The new European Medical Device Regulations (EMDR) is expected to specify minimum requirements regarding the frequency of updating clinical evaluations, but MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4 discusses this in section 6.2.3. The frequency of updating your clinical evaluations must be justified and documented. Many considerations for this justification are discussed, but the end of that section indicates that devices with significant risks (e.g., implants) require at least annual updates to the clinical evaluation report. For devices with non-significant risks, and where the device is well established (e.g., a long clinical history), 2-5 years is the range of possible frequency. Longer than five years are not allowed.

Who should perform clinical evaluations?

Many device manufacturers are receiving nonconformities because the evaluators are not sufficiently qualified, or the qualifications are not documented. The qualifications must follow 6.4 of the new guidance, and the qualifications set by your company should be documented in your procedure for clinical evaluations. You will need to document these qualifications with more than an abstract, but you will also need to present a declaration of interest for each evaluator. Evaluators need knowledge in clinical study design, biostatistics, information management, regulatory requirements, and medical writing. Evaluators also need knowledge specific to the device, its technology, and its application. Evaluators must also have a higher education degree in the field and five years of experience or ten years of experience if they do not have a higher education degree. Due to the breadth and depth required of qualifications required, it may be necessary to assemble a team to perform evaluations.

Creating a quality plan for compliance with MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4

Seven steps need to be included in your quality plan for compliance with MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4:

  1. update your external standards to replace MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 3 with MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4
  2. revise your procedure and associated templates for a literature review and clinical evaluation report to meet the requirements of MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4
  3. document the qualifications of evaluators for clinical evaluations
  4. document a plan/schedule for updating your clinical evaluation reports for each product family
  5. train evaluators, regulatory personnel and any applicable internal auditors on the requirements of MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev four and updated procedures and forms
  6. begin updating clinical evaluations according to your plan
  7. perform an internal audit of your clinical evaluation process

Learning more about MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4

If you are interested in learning more about this revised guidance document, please register for our live webinar on Friday, January 27 @ Noon EST by clicking on the button below.

Click Here 300x115 MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4: How will your clinical evaluation change?

MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4: How will your clinical evaluation change? Read More »

Color change is only device modification. Is a new 510k required?

2 Comments / Design Control / By

This article explains the process for determining if a color change and other material changes require a new 510k before implementing the change.

color change Color change is only device modification. Is a new 510k required?

I recently taught a frequently asked questions (FAQs) webinar, where I asked attendees to provide questions in advance of the webinar, and I answered the questions during the webinar. One of the attendees asked how to know if a new 510k is required if the only modification to a device is a color change.

New FDA guidance for device modifications

On August 8, 2016, the FDA released a new draft guidance document for device manufacturers regarding device modifications and when a new 510k is required. The current final guidance is titled “Deciding when to submit a 510(k) for a change to an existing device,” and that guidance is dated January 10, 1997. A draft guidance document on this topic was released several years ago, but that draft guidance was withdrawn in response to feedback from the industry. The new draft guidance document includes modified decision trees to help manufacturers decide which types of changes will require a new submission, but there are also examples provided in Appendix A. The most helpful part of the guidance, however, is Appendix B. Appendix B explains how to document changes properly—regardless of whether a change requires submission or not.

Decision Trees from the Guidance

There are five decision trees or flow charts provided in the new draft guidance. The purpose of each decision tree is identified below:

  • Main flow chart
  • Decision Tree A = labeling changes
  • Decision Tree B = technology, engineering and performance changes
  • Decision Tree C = material changes
  • Decision Tree D = IVD product changes

How to apply Decision Tree C to a color change

Typically adding a colorant, or changing a colorant, does not negatively impact the strength of a device, but this is the first cautionary statement made at the beginning of the section for material changes. Therefore, if your device has a performance testing requirements that involve a component that is involved in a proposed color change, then you need to repeat the performance testing to verify that the color change has not negatively impacted the strength. Sometimes large concentrations of colorant result in weakening of plastics. Therefore, repeating some of the performance testing or providing data that supports the need for no further testing is expected. In the decision tree, this is addressed by question C5, “Could the change affect performance specifications?” If no, then you document the change, but a new 510k is not required. If yes, then you refer to decision tree question B5.

The next concern addressed by Decision Tree C is the biocompatibility of your modified device. If the material change of the device or device component comes into direct contact with the body, blood, or tissues, then biocompatibility risks must be assessed. If the change does create new or increased issues related to biocompatibility, then question C4.1 asks, “Has the manufacturer used the same material in a similar legally marketed device?” If the changed material has not been used previously for a similar application, then a new 510k is required—typically a Special 510k if only the material is changed and only biocompatibility needs to be assessed by the FDA.

Reference to FDA biocompatibility guidance

Within the guidance document, the FDA explains that you may want to refer to “Use of International Standard ISO 10993-1, ‘Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices Part 1: Evaluation and Testing,’” when you are answering question C4. This new final guidance was released on June 16, 2016, and the Office of Device Evaluation (ODE) appears to be focusing much more closely on biocompatibility since this new guidance released.

Examples of material changes from FDA guidance

There are six examples of material changes presented in the new draft guidance:

  1. A slight change in polymer composition for a catheter = letter to file
  2. Change in polymer for a catheter
    1. Change in a polymer for a catheter to a polymer already used by another manufacturer for a 510k cleared device with the same indications = new 510k submission
    2. Change in a polymer for a catheter to a polymer already used by your company for another 510k cleared catheter of the same type and duration of contact = letter to file
    3. Change in a polymer for a catheter to a polymer already used by your company for another 510k cleared catheter of the same type but shorter duration of contact = new 510k submission
    4. Change in a polymer for a catheter to a polymer already used by your company for another 510k cleared catheter of the same type but longer duration of contact = letter to file
  3. Change in the manufacturing method of catheter tubing (i.e., molding to extrusion) = new 510k submission
  4. Change in material for a catheter
    1. The new polymer is already used by your company for another 510k cleared catheter of the same type and same duration, but the sterilization method changes (i.e., gamma to EO) = new 510k submission
    2. The new polymer is already used by your company for another 510k cleared catheter of the same type, duration, method of manufacturing (i.e., molding) and method of sterilization (i.e., EO) = letter to file
    3. The new polymer is already used by your company for another 510k cleared catheter of the same type, duration, method of manufacturing and sterilization, but the performance specifications are slightly different = letter to file (depends upon the impact of difference)
  5. Change in the dental implant from the untreated surface to acid-etched = new 510k submission (may also be considered a design change)
  6. The implantable device is marked temporarily with tape proven not to leave a residue = letter to file

Do you have other questions about biocompatibility?

On Thursday, December 1, @ 11:00 am EST, I will be hosting a new live webinar on the topic of biocompatibility. The webinar will address both requirements for 510k submissions and for CE Marking technical files. If you are interested in registering for that webinar, please click on the following link:

Click Here for Biocompatibility Webinar 300x64 Color change is only device modification. Is a new 510k required?

Do you have a question about your 510k submission?

If you have a question related to your 510k submission, you can submit your question to me and download the webinar recording for free by clicking on the following link:

Click Here for 510k FAQs Webinar 300x64 Color change is only device modification. Is a new 510k required?

I will respond to your question by email, but most questions make great future blog topics—like this one.

You might also be interested in our 510k course series:

Click Here for 510k Course 300x64 Color change is only device modification. Is a new 510k required?

You gain unlimited access to 24 webinars related to 510k submission.

Color change is only device modification. Is a new 510k required? Read More »

Redacted 510k Database – Have you used the newest FDA tool?

Leave a Comment / 510(k) / By

This article describes the new database of redacted 510k submissions that was recently made available online for immediate download by the US FDA.

Number of Redacted 510k Available Since November 2000 Redacted 510k Database Have you used the newest FDA tool?

Recently the FDA made redacted 510k submissions that were previously released through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests available on-line for immediate download. There are 496 redacted 510k submissions available since November 2000–as indicated by the graph above. This is only a small fraction of the total number of 510k submissions, but the number that is available on-line will increase over time.

Types of redacted 510k Submissions

Of the 496 submissions, there is a mixture of submission types.

  • 382 are traditional 510k submissions
  • 97 are special 510k submissions
  • 17 are abbreviated 510k submissions
  • 14 were 3rd Party reviewed

What remains in a redacted 510k submission

The redacted versions do not include testing data, but you will find other goodies such as:

  • 3rd Party SE memorandums (where applicable)
  • Table of Contents
  • Pre-market Notification Cover Sheet (i.e., FDA Form 3514)
  • 510k Cover Letter
  • Indications for Use (i.e., FDA Form 3881)
  • 510(k) Summary
  • Truthful & Accuracy Statement
  • Device Description
  • Executive Summary
  • Substantial Equivalence Discussion (Partially Redacted)
  • Summary of Biocompatibility Testing (Partially Redacted)
  • Summary of Sterilization & Shelf-Life (Partially Redacted)
  • Proposed Labeling
  • Predicate Device Labeling
  • Declarations of Conformity (i.e., FDA Form 3654)
  • Deficiency Letter

This is valuable information that can be used to help select a potential predicate and to develop a verification and validation testing plan. If you are less experienced in the preparation of a 510k submission, it will help to see how other regulatory experts have organized their 510k submissions.

Learning more about redacted 510k submissions

To access this database, click on this link: Redacted FOIA 510k Database. To limit your search to only 510k submissions that are available as a redacted full 510k, just click on the box for “Redacted FOIA 510k.” If you are interested in learning more about how to make the most of this new resource, please sign up for my latest webinar on Monday, November 21 @ 9 am EST.

Redacted 510k Database – Have you used the newest FDA tool? Read More »

Abbreviated 510k or Traditional 510k?

2 Comments / 510(k) / By

The article briefly explains the three types of 510k submissions and identifies when you should be submitting an abbreviated 510k instead of a traditional 510k.

Abbreviated 510k Abbreviated 510k or Traditional 510k?Three types of 510k submissions

The FDA has three different target timelines for reviewing a 510k submission and issuing a decision regarding substantial equivalence (i.e., SE Letter):

  1. Special 510k
  2. Abbreviated 510k
  3. Traditional 510k

Special 510k submissions

The first type is a special 510k submission. The FDA target timeline for a special 510k is 30 days, but you can only submit a Special 510k for a modification of your device that already has a 510k issued. Also, a Special 510k is only possible if the device modification requires a single technical discipline to review the change. For example, changes to software and materials require a review of software validation and biocompatibility. Therefore, two reviewer specialists must coordinate their efforts, and the review cannot be completed in 30 days. In this case, an abbreviated or traditional 510k must be submitted instead.

Abbreviated 510k submissions

The second type of 510k submission is an abbreviated 510k. The FDA target timeline for review is 60 days. If there is a recognized standard specific to the type of device you are submitting, or the FDA has issued a guidance document addressing that device classification, then an abbreviated 510k submission is recommended. For example, a dental handpiece (i.e., product code is ) has a special controls guidance document that explicitly written for dental handpieces, and the guidance states that an abbreviated 510k submission is recommended. Besides, the FDA recognizes the latest standard for dental handpieces: ISO 14457:2012 (FDA Doc # 4-206).

Traditional 510k submissions

The third type of 510k submission is a traditional 510k submission. The FDA target timeline for review is 90 days. If you are submitting a 510k for a new device, or the device modifications require more than one functional area of expertise, then a special 510k is not an option. If there is no recognized standard for the device type and the FDA has not issued the guidance of a special control for your device classification, then an abbreviated submission is also not an option. A traditional 510k submission is your only option in this case.

How frequently is an abbreviated 510k submission type used?

In September 2016, there were 260 510k SE decisions issued by the FDA. Here’s the breakdown by type:

  • Special 510k – 47 submissions = 18%
  • Abbreviated 510k – 8 submissions = 3%
  • Traditional 510k – 205 submissions = 79%

In general, I think it requires a little more effort to write clear and concise summaries for the various sections of an abbreviated 510k than it does for a traditional 510k. But if you can get your product to market a month quicker then it’s worth it.

Additional Resources for 510k submissions

If you would like additional training on 510k submissions or you would like to access Medical Device Academy’s templates, you can purchase all of our templates and 510k webinars on our 510k course webpage.

Abbreviated 510k or Traditional 510k? Read More »

Product Launch Design Planning for a 510k Submission in 300 Days or Less

2 Comments / 510(k) / By

This article explains how to conduct design planning for a new medical device product launch that requires a 510k submission in 300 days or less.

Device Product Launch in 300 Days Product Launch Design Planning for a 510k Submission in 300 Days or Less

One of the most valuable pieces of information you can receive is a plan for your medical device product launch. Some companies contact me, asking for help in implementing their quality system. You should be implementing this step last if you are a start-up company. Some companies contact me asking for help preparing their 510k submission. But you need to seek help much earlier. The best time to contact an expert for help with your product launch is 300 days before you want to launch your product.

Three Major Milestones of a Product Launch

Three major milestones must be completed before a medical device product launch can proceed. First, you need to complete the design specifications for your device. Second, you need to complete the design verification and validation activities and summarize this testing in a 510k submission or another type of regulatory submission. Third, you need to implement a quality system that meets the requirements of 21 CFR 820 and/or ISO 13485:2016. Each of these three major tasks can be completed in less than six months, but with proper planning and motivation, all three can be completed sequentially in less than one year for many products. Completing all three milestones in 300 days is possible.

Break Your Product Launch into Phases

Whenever I plan a design project, I break the overall product development into chunks that are easily understood, with measurable milestones, and I establish a timeline that is aggressive but possible. The design process typically has six phases, but several of these phases are shorter than you want, and the overall process is too long for a single chunk. Therefore, I decided to break the six phases into three pieces: 1) product development, 2) verification and validation, and 3) regulatory clearance. The end of the first chunk is marked by a “design freeze” where your team will conduct a design review and approve the final design outputs before you begin verification and validation of your product design. The second chunk is marked by the submission of a 510k or some other regulatory submission. The third chunk is marked by the completion of your quality system and receipt of your 510k clearance letter from the FDA.

How Long Should Each Phase of the Product Launch Be?

In the past, I would choose a timeline of approximately 3-4 months for each major phase of product launch. However, I have been learning a lot about goal setting, and I now target 100 days for the completion of most milestones. The reason is that 100 days is a time period over which most people can maintain their enthusiasm and motivation for completing a goal. If a goal takes longer than 100 days, then you should probably break down the goal into two or more smaller goals. If each of the three major phases of your product launch requires 100 days, then you can complete the overall product development and product launch within 300 days. One of the tools I recommend for planning and tracking your progress toward a 100-day goal is The Freedom Journal.

Product Launch Phase 1 – Your Design Plan

Your design plan should be the first thing you create. To create a design plan, you will need to identify the regulatory pathway–including all of the testing that is required for verification and validation of your new medical device. This design plan should identify all the design reviews, all the verification and validation testing that is required, and the regulatory approval process required before the product launch.

Product Launch Phase 2 – Preparing Your 510k Submission

Once you have approved your design outputs during the “design freeze,” now you need to complete the verification and validation testing, during this phase you will need to make sure that you have identified all the testing, and how many samples will be required for each test. You need to determine which steps of the testing process can be performed in parallel instead of performing tasks in series. For example, you will need to package and sterilize samples that are required for biocompatibility testing, but electrical safety testing samples can be non-sterile. Therefore, the packaging validation must be completed before biocompatibility testing, but the electrical safety and EMC testing can be performed in parallel with both activities. For most products, biocompatibility testing is one of the last tests that is typically completed, and the longest of these tests usually takes between 8-12 weeks. Therefore, 100 days is probably the fastest you can complete your verification and validation testing. During the entire verification and validation process, you should be preparing your 510k submission. This will ensure that the submission is ready when the last test report is received–instead of frantically rushing to complete the submission in just a few weeks at the end of the process.

Product Launch Phase 3 – Implementing Your Quality System

Many companies start their quality system at the beginning of the design process. However, you should only implement two procedures before completing your 510k submission: 1) design controls, and 2) risk management. These two procedures are needed to document your design history file (DHF) properly, and it is much harder to document your DHF after the design is completed. The balance of the procedures can be implemented in about 100 days, while your 510k submission should take between 90 and 180 days to receive clearance from the FDA. Therefore, you should be able to complete the quality system implementation before receipt of your 510k clearance letter.

“Rinse and Repeat” for Your Next Product Launch

Once you have completed your product launch, you should review the post-market surveillance from your customers during the first 90 days. I like to call this the 100-day review. One hundred days after the first product launch is the perfect time to conduct your first management review meeting. You should have your first internal audit completed during the first 100 days, and you should have a lot of great feedback from customers during the first 90 days of product use. Therefore, top management can review the customer feedback, internal audit results, and progress toward other quality objectives to identify improvement action items needed. These improvements may be quality system improvements and/or product improvements. One of the outputs of your first management review meeting should also be an identification of your next product development.

Product Launch Design Planning for a 510k Submission in 300 Days or Less Read More »

Implementing Procedures for CAPA, NCMR & Receiving Inspection

1 Comment / ISO 13485:2016 / By

The article shares lessons learned from implementing procedures for a new ISO 13485 quality system. This is the second in a series. The first month of procedure implementation was covered in a previous article titled, “How to implement a new ISO 13485 quality system plan in 2016.”

Implementing Procedures Implementing Procedures for CAPA, NCMR & Receiving Inspection

Typically, I recommend implementing a new ISO 13485 quality system over six months. Still, recently I a few clients have requested my assistance with implementing a quality management system within four months. In November, I wrote an article about implementing a new ISO 13485 quality system. That article described implementing procedures for the first month. Specifically, the implementation of the following procedures was covered:

  1. SYS-027, Purchasing
  2. SYS-001, Document Control
  3. SYS-002, Record & Data Control
  4. SYS-004, Training & Competency
  5. SYS-011, Supplier Quality Management
  6. SYS-008, Product Development
  7. SYS-010, Risk Management
  8. SYS-006, Change Control

These eight procedures are typically needed first. This article covers the implementation of the next set of procedures. During this month, I recommend conducting company-wide quality management system training for the ISO 13485 and 21 CFR 820.

Implementing Receiving Inspection Procedures

During the first month, procedures for purchasing components and services are implemented. As these products are shipped and received by your company, you need to create records of incoming inspection. It is not sufficient to merely have a log for receiving inspection. You need records of the results of the inspection. You may outsource the inspection activities, but receiving personnel must review the records of inspection for accuracy and completeness before moving product to your storage warehouse or production areas. Even if the inspection is 100% outsourced, it is still recommended to verify the inspection results independently on a sampling basis periodically. This should be a risk-based sampling that takes into account the importance of the item being inspected and the existence of in-process and final inspection activities that will identify potential nonconformities.

The most challenging part of this process typically is identifying inspection procedures and calibrated devices for inspection. Your company must find a balance between inspections performed by suppliers, incoming inspection, in-process inspection, and final inspection. Each of these process controls requires time and resources, but implementation should be risk-based and take into account the effectiveness of each inspection process–as determined by process validation. Sample sizes for inspection should also be risk-based.

Implementing Procedures for Identification and Traceability

The lot or a serial number of components must be identified throughout product realization–including incoming inspection, storage, production, final inspection, and shipping. In addition to determining what things are, you must also identify the status of each item throughout the product realization process. For example:

  • Is the product to be inspected or already inspected?
  • After the inspection, is product accepted or rejected?
  • Which production processes have been completed?
  • Is the product released for the final shipment?

The procedure for identification and traceability should be implemented immediately after the purchasing process, implemented during 1st month, because traceability requirements should be communicated to suppliers as part of supplier quality agreements and as part of each purchase order.

Initially, when this process is implemented, there is a tendency to complete forms for every step of the process and to distribute copies of the forms to communicate status. Completing forms and copying paperwork requires labor and adds no value. Therefore, learn manufacturing methods and visual indicators such as color-coding are recommended as best practices for identifying products and their status.

Implementing CAPA Procedures

When a product is identified as nonconforming, corrective actions need to be implemented to prevent a recurrence. Procedures need to include the requirement for planning corrective actions, containing a nonconforming product, correcting nonconformities, and implementing actions to prevent any future nonconformities. These procedures also need to address negative trends to prevent nonconformities before the product is out of specification (i.e., preventive actions). Procedures also need to provide guidelines on how to verify the effectiveness of corrective and preventive actions. Initially, the actions implemented will be specific to a purchased product that is received and rejected. However, over time data analysis of process monitoring and internal auditing will identify additional corrective and preventive actions that are needed.

The effectiveness of CAPA processes, in general, requires three key elements:

  1. A well-designed CAPA form
  2. Proper training on root cause analysis
  3. Performing effectiveness checks

In the CAPA training provided during the second month, the best practices for CAPA form design are covered. The training includes several methods for root causes analysis too. Finally, the training emphasizes using quantitative measurements to verify the effectiveness of corrective actions. It is recommended to identify the quantitative acceptance criteria for an effective corrective action before initiating actions to ensure that the actions planned are sufficient to prevent a recurrence.

Monitoring Your Procedure Implementation Process

As indicated in November’s article, I recommend using quantitative metrics to track the progress of procedure implementation. For example:

  1. % of procedures implemented,
  2. duration of document review and approval process, and
  3. % of required training completed.

Implementing Procedures for ISO 13485:2016

If you already have a quality system in place, you are implementing procedures that are modified for ISO 13485:2016 compliance, some of the same lessons learned to apply. If you are interested in learning more about the changes required for compliance with the 2016 version of the standard, we recorded two live webinars on March 24, 2016.

Implementing Procedures for CAPA, NCMR & Receiving Inspection Read More »

Scroll to Top