Regulatory pathway analysis–a case study

This article uses a case study example to explain how to determine the correct regulatory pathway for your medical device through the US FDA.

Regulatory Pathway 1 Regulatory pathway analysis  a case study

How do you select the right regulatory pathway for your device?

Every consultant likes to answer this type of question with the answer, “It depends.” Well, of course, it depends. If there was only one answer, you could google that question, and you wouldn’t need to pay a regulatory consultant to answer the question. A more useful response is to start by asking five qualifying questions:

  1. Does your product meet the definition of a device?
  2. What is the intended purpose of your product?
  3. How many people in the USA need your product annually?
  4. Is there a similar product already on the market?
  5. What are the risks associated with your product?

The first question is important because some products are not regulated as medical devices. If your product does not diagnose, treat, or monitor a medical condition, then your product may not be a device. For example, the product might be considered a general wellness product or clinical decision support software.  In addition, some products have a systemic mode of action, and these products are typically categorized as a drug rather than a device–even if the product includes a needle and syringe.

The intended purpose of a product is the primary method used by the US FDA to determine how a product is regulated. This also determines which group within the FDA is responsible for reviewing a submission for your product. The US regulations use the term “intended use” of a device, but the decision is based upon the “indications for use” which are more specific. To understand the difference, we created a video explaining the difference.

Even regulatory consultants sometimes forget to ask how many people need your product annually, but population size determines the regulatory pathway. Any intended patient population less than 8,000 patients annually in the USA is eligible for a humanitarian device exemption with a special regulatory pathway and pricing constraints. If your product is intended for a population of <8,000 people annually, your device could qualify for a humanitarian device exemption, and the market is small enough that there may not be any similar products on the market.

If similar products are already on the US market, determining the regulatory pathway is much easier. We can look up the competitor product(s) in the FDA’s registration and listing database. In most cases, you must follow the same pathway your competitors took, and the FDA database will tell us your regulatory pathway.

If all of the products on the US market have different indications for use, or the technological characteristics of your product are different from other devices, then you need to categorize your product’s risks. For low-risk devices, general controls may be adequate. For medium-risk devices, special controls are required by the FDA. For the highest-risk devices, the FDA usually requires a clinical study, a panel review of your clinical data, and the FDA requires pre-market approval.

This article will use the example of bipolar forceps used with an electrosurgical generator as a case study.

Bipolar Forceps Regulatory pathway analysis  a case study

What is the US FDA regulatory pathway for you device?

The generic term used for regulator authorization is “approval,” but the US FDA reserves this term for Class 3 devices with a Premarket Approval (PMA) submission . The reason for this is that only these submissions include a panel review of clinical data to support safety and effectiveness of the device. Approval is limited to ~30 devices each year, and approximately 1,000 devices have been approved through the PMA process since 1976 when the US FDA first began regulating medical devices.

Most Class 2 devices are submitted to the FDA as Premarket Notifications or 510k submissions. This process is referred to as “510k clearance,” because clinical data is usually not required with this submissions and there is no panel review of safety and effectiveness data. A 510k was originally planned as a rare pathway that would only be used by devices that are copies of other devices that are already sold on the market. However, the 510k pathway became the defacto regulatory pathway for 95+% of devices that are sold in the USA.

For moderate and high-risk devices that are intended for rare patient populations (i.e., <8,000 patients per year in the USA), the humanitarian device exemption process is the regulatory pathway.

Class 1 devices typically do not require a 510k submission, most of these devices are exempt from design controls, and some are exempt from quality system requirements. These devices still require listing on the FDA registration and listing database, but there is no review of the device by the FDA to ensure you have correctly classified and labeled Class 1 devices.

How do you find a predicate for your 510k submission?

As stated above, one of the most critical questions is, “Is there a similar product already on the market?” For our example of bipolar forceps, the answer is “yes.” There are approximately 169 bipolar forceps that have been 510k cleared by the FDA since 1976. If you are developing new bipolar forceps, you must prepare a 510k submission. The first step of this process is to verify that a 510k submission is the correct pathway and to find a suitable competitor product to use as a “predicate” device. A predicate device is a device that meets each of the following criteria:

  1. it is legally marketing in the USA
  2. it has indications for use that are equivalent to your device
  3. the technological characteristics are equivalent to your device

There are two search strategies we use to verify the product classification of a new device and to find a suitable predicate device. The first strategy is to use the free, public databases provided by the FDA. Ideally, you instantly think of a direct competitor that sells bipolar forceps for electrosurgery in the USA (e.g., Conmed bipolar forceps). You can use the registration and listing database to find a suitable predicate in this situation. First, you type “Conmed” into the database search tool for the name of the company, and then you type “bipolar forceps” in the data search tool for the name of the device.

Registration and Listing for Conmed Bipolar Forceps 1024x443 Regulatory pathway analysis  a case study

If you are unaware of any competitor products, you will need to search using the product classification database instead. Unfortunately, this approach will result in no results if you use the terms “bipolar” or “forceps.” Therefore, you will need to be more creative and use the word “electrosurgical,” which describes a larger product classification that includes both monopolar and bipolar surgical devices that have many sizes and shapes–including bipolar forceps. The correct product classification is seventh out of 31 search results.

GEI Product code 1024x454 Regulatory pathway analysis  a case study

Listing for Conmed Specification Developer 1024x398 Regulatory pathway analysis  a case study

The most significant disadvantage of the FDA databases is that you can only search each database separately. The search is also a boolean-type search rather than using natural language algorithms that we all take for granted. The second strategy is to use a licensed database (e.g., Basil Systems).

Basil systems search for bipolar forceps 1024x427 Regulatory pathway analysis  a case study

Searching these databases is more efficient, and the software will provide additional information that the FDA website does not offer, such as a predicate tree, review time, and models listed under each 510k number are provided below:

Predicate Tree for K190909 1024x539 Regulatory pathway analysis  a case study

What does the predicate tree look like for the predicate device you selected?

Review Time for devices in the GEI product classification code 1024x452 Regulatory pathway analysis  a case study

I’m glad I don’t need to manually enter the 510k review time for 2,263 devices to create the above graph.

Conmed bipolar forceps listed under K854864 1024x323 Regulatory pathway analysis  a case study

Wouldn’t having the model numbers for every device identified in the US FDA listing database be nice?

Another advantage of the Basil Systems software is that the database is lightning-fast, while the FDA is a free government database (i.e., not quite as fast).

How do you create a regulatory pathway strategy for medical devices?

The best strategy for obtaining 510k clearance is to select a predicate device with the same indications for use that you want and was recently cleared by the FDA. Therefore, you will need to review FDA Form 3881 for each of the potential predicate devices you find for your device. In the case of the bipolar forceps, there are 169 devices to choose from, but FDA Form 3881 is not available for 100% of those devices because the FDA database only displays FDA Form 3881 and the 510(k) Summary for devices cleared since 1996. Therefore, you should select a device cleared by the FDA in the past ten years unless there are no equivalent devices with a recent clearance.

K190909 FDA Form 3881 798x1024 Regulatory pathway analysis  a case study

In addition to identifying the correct product classification code for your device and selecting a predicate device, you will also need to develop a testing plan for the verification and validation of your device. For electrosurgical devices, there is an FDA special controls guidance that defines the testing requirements and the content required for a 510k submission. Once you develop a testing plan, you should confirm that the FDA agrees with your regulatory strategy and testing plan in a pre-submission meeting.

Which type of 510k submission is required for your device?

There are three types of 510k submissions:

  1. Special 510k – 30-day review target timeline
  2. Abbreviated 510k – 90-day review target timeline (requires summary reports and use of recognized consensus standards)
  3. Traditional 510k – 90-day review target timeline

The special 510k pathway is intended for minor device modifications from the predicate device. However, this pathway is only eligible to your company if your company also submitted the predicate device. Originally it was only permitted to submit a Special 510k for modifications that require the review of one functional area. However, the FDA recently completed a pilot study evaluating if more than one functional area could be reviewed. The FDA determined that up to three functional areas could be reviewed. However, the FDA decides whether they can complete the review within 30 days or if you need to convert your Special 510k submission to a Traditional submission. Therefore, you should also discuss the submission type with the FDA in a pre-submission meeting if you are unsure whether the device modifications will allow the FDA to complete the review in 30 days.

In 2019 the FDA updated the guidance document for Abbreviated 510k submissions. However, this pathway requires that the manufacturer use recognized consensus standards for the testing, and the manufacturer must provide a summary document for each test report. The theory is that abbreviated reports require less time for the FDA to review than full test reports. However, if you do not provide sufficient information in the summary document, the FDA will place your submission on hold and request additional information. This happens for nearly 100% of abbreviated 510k submissions. Therefore, there is no clear benefit for manufacturers to take the time to write a summary for each report in the 510k submission. This also explains why less than 2% of submissions were abbreviated type in 2022.

The traditional type of 510k is the most common type of 510k submission used by manufacturers, and this is the type we recommend for all new device manufacturers.

Posted in: 510(k), FDA

Leave a Comment (0) →

5 ways to ensure you are a valuable management representative

This article gives you five ways a management representative can demonstrate value to medical device top management teams.

poor management review meetings 5 ways to ensure you are a valuable management representative

Align quality objectives with the company first and the FDA second

A fast way to alienate yourself as a management representative is to begin every conversation with a quote from the FDA regulations. Instead, ensure that quality objectives align with the company’s overall goals. For example:

  • Is your company trying to launch a new product?
  • Is your company trying to reduce scrap?
  • Is your company trying to increase productivity?

Next, reword the company’s goals as quality objectives:

  • Complete the design verification and validation of our new product by August 15.
  • Reduce nonconforming products from the molding process by 50% this year.
  • Increase the number of production lots released each week from four to five lots of 1,000 units per lot.

Next, ensure that your quality objectives are achievable, measurable, and have clear timelines for completion. Quality objectives should not be stretch goals. If you have to initiate a corrective action because you didn’t achieve a quality objective, you just create more work for yourself and the company.

Teach people to focus on the process and not the procedure

The FDA and the ISO 13485 standard require procedures to be established. However, if you focus on the documentation of processes, your company will do stupid things faster. Instead, management representatives need to be able to teach people how to make processes more effective before the processes are documented. Lean manufacturing techniques are not limited to manufacturing. You can apply lean methods to administrative processes too. For example:

  • What information needs to be in a form?
  • What is the correct order of tasks for the process?
  • Is there duplicate or unnecessary information?

A management representative helps identify what to measure

In a management review meeting, the effectiveness of the quality system is reviewed, and improvements are identified. This does not mean the management representative needs to measure or create slides and graphs. As a management representative, you should ask the CEO the most important information they want from each department or member of top management. Once you know what information the CEO wants, please work with the other members of top management to find the most efficient way to get that information and graph it. Help the other managers identify who can generate the graph with the least effort (it’s seldom a manager), and help that person build the reporting of that information into their routine.

A management representative needs to share the spotlight

A management review meeting is only effective if the top management is engaged in the process. Therefore, the management representative should not create 100% of the slides or present 100% of the slides. Everyone should have a piece they are responsible for and can be proud of. When an individual or a team achieves a goal, we can celebrate the achievement in a management review. When an individual or team struggles, we can ask for help in a management review. If other members of top management are not engaged in preparation for a management review, they will not be enthusiastic about listening to the presentation either.

Have a positive attitude as a management representative

Everyone hates to listen to someone that has a negative attitude. As managers, we sometimes need to report bad news. However, we need to develop ideas to solve problems instead of just reporting gloom and doom. We also need to ensure we never miss an opportunity to report good news.

Management representatives should schedule reviews more often

This last section is a bonus (i.e., a sixth way to ensure you are a valuable management representative). Most management review procedures require a management review at least once per year. Unfortunately, there is little point in reviewing quality information from last February during this January. If changes to your quality system are planned or implemented, more frequent reviews are needed. Examples of changes that should prompt you to schedule an extra management review include mergers, new product launches, and employee turnover.

FREE Procedure and Training Webinar

If you want a free management review procedure and training webinar, please sign-up.

Posted in: ISO 9001:2015, ISO Certification

Leave a Comment (0) →

How to select and help validate the best sterilization method?

The FDA eSTAR includes a list of eight different options for a sterilization method, but how do you select the best method and validate it?

Sterilization Method Selection 1024x576 How to select and help validate the best sterilization method?

What is Sterile Packaging Day?

The Sterilization Packaging Manufacturers Council (SPMC) founded Sterile Packaging Day in 2021 to recognize and thank all of the companies in the supply chain who work together to deliver innovative, safe, and sterilized devices to provide excellence in patient care. Sterile Packaging Day is February 8, 2023, and this year’s celebration theme is “Designed to Protect.” SPMC provides four tips for celebrating Sterile Packaging Day:

  1. Donate blood (use this link for an appointment) on February 8, 2023, at MD&M West in Anaheim
  2. Recognize and thank an esteemed packaging professional with whom you collaborate for success
  3. Support the next generation of packaging engineers (FPA Student Design Challenge)
  4. Tell us in one word what “Designed to Protect” means to you (Rob chose “Lifesaving”)

Thank you to Jan Gates!

How to select the best sterilization method

Several factors determine the best sterilization method to use for your device. The first factor is whether your device will be delivered sterile or will the end user sterilize the device. If the end user is responsible for sterilizing the device, the most common methods used by hospitals are:

  1. steam sterilization
  2. hydrogen peroxide sterilization
  3. EO sterilization

The popularity of the third method is declining due to environmental restrictions on hazardous emissions from the ethylene oxide sterilization process. Hydrogen peroxide is gaining popularity because it can be used for heat-sensitive materials, and hydrogen peroxide vapor reacts with moisture to form a harmless aqueous solution. Steam is the most common sterilization method used by doctors, dentists, and hospitals because steam sterilizers are relatively inexpensive, and no hazardous chemicals are required.

The second factor to consider when selecting a sterilization method is whether there are any heat-sensitive components. Plastics will melt and degrade in dry heat sterilization cycles, and some plastics cannot withstand the temperature of a steam sterilizer. Therefore, if your device is constructed from plastics for cost reduction, weight, magnetic resonance (MR) compatibility, or other reasons, you may need to use a sterilization method with a lower temperature process.

The third factor to consider when selecting a sterilization method is whether any long, narrow tubes require sterilization. These design features are difficult to sterilize for any vapor-based sterilization process, such as steam, hydrogen peroxide, or ethylene oxide. There are a few process control strategies that can be used to sterilize with gas:

  • use of an extreme vacuum to improve penetration of sterilant gas
  • ensuring that the device and packaging materials are dry
  • use of longer cycles with more sterilant gas
  • use of internal biological indicators at the most difficult sterilization location

The fourth factor to consider when selecting a sterilization method is whether the device includes a liquid. A liquid cannot be sterilized with hydrogen peroxide, ethylene oxide, or dry heat. In some cases, the liquid may be a sterilant (i.e., ISO 14160:2021 for liquid chemical sterilizing agents). There are three popular solutions for the sterilization of a device that includes liquid:

  1. steam sterilization–assuming the liquid doesn’t contain components that are heat sensitive (e.g., proteins)
  2. filter sterilization–usually combined with aseptic filling and pre-sterilizing containers)
  3. radiation sterilization with eBeam or Gamma

eBeam and Gamma are also used for sterilizing products where cross-linkage of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) is desired, or it is impossible for a gas sterilant to penetrate all areas of a device.

What are the applicable sterilization validation standards for each sterilization method?

As shown in the FDA eSTAR screen capture above, eight possible sterilization methods can be selected for sterilizing a medical device in a 510k or De Novo submission. Each sterilization method has a different applicable standard that should be used to validate the sterilization process, but in all cases, the sterilization process must result in a sterility assurance level (SAL) of 10-6.

The FDA feels that the Established A (Est A) methods of sterilization have a long history of safe and effective use, while the FDA has not recognized a dedicated consensus standard for the Established B (Est B) sterilization methods. However, there are examples of devices that have received FDA 510k clearance using each of the non-traditional sterilization methods (i.e., Est B methods). Manufacturers will generally adapt existing international standards for sterilization validation to validate the non-traditional methods. There is published information on the development, validation, and routine control for these non-traditional sterilization processes.

Links to each of the recognized standards are provided below:

  1. Steam (Moist Heat) (Est A) – ISO 17665-1:2006, Sterilization of health care products — Moist heat — Part 1: Requirements for the development, validation, and routine control of a sterilization process for medical devices
  2. Ethylene Oxide (EO, EtO) (Est A) – ISO 11135:2014, Sterilization of health care products – Ethylene oxide – Requirements for development, validation and routine control of a sterilization process for medical devices; and ISO 10993-7:2008, Biological evaluation of medical devices – Part 7: Ethylene oxide sterilization residuals
  3. Radiation (Est A) – ISO 11137-1:2006, Sterilization of health care products – Radiation – Part 1: Requirements for development, validation, and routine control of a sterilization process for medical devices; ISO 11137-2:2013, Sterilization of health care products – Radiation – Part 2: Establishing the sterilization dose
  4. Dry Heat (Est A) – ISO 20857:2010, Sterilization of health care products – Dry heat – Requirements for the development, validation and routine control of a sterilization process for medical devices
  5. Hydrogen Peroxide (Est B) – ISO 22441:2022, Sterilization of health care products — Low temperature vaporized hydrogen peroxide — Requirements for the development, validation and routine control of a sterilization process for medical devices (this standard is not recognized by the US FDA)
  6. Ozone (Est B) – this is a new method using Ozone gas, and the method of action is similar to EO and H2O2
  7. Flexible Bag Systems (Est B) – ISO 22441:2022 should be used for validation of flexible bag systems with hydrogen peroxide, but instead of validating the process with three half-cycles that are half the duration of the full-cycle, instead, you use three half-cycles that use half the volume of sterilant of a full-cycle; this method is used by Andersen Scientific for their EO Bag sterilizers.
  8. Novel Methods – ISO 14937:2009, Sterilization of health care products – General requirements for characterization of a sterilizing agent and the development, validation and routine control of a sterilization process for medical devices

When should you use a novel sterilization method?

Novel sterilization methods should only be used when none of the traditional (Est A) and non-traditional (Est B) sterilization methods will not work. For example, aseptic filling combined with filtration of liquids is a common strategy for pre-filled syringes if the liquid is sensitive to radiation sterilization. Sterilization with peracetic acid has been used for a long time, but the sterilization method has not gained widespread popularity. Peracetic acid can also be combined with hydrogen peroxide. There is also a low-temperature steam and formaldehyde validation standard (i.e., ISO 25424:2019). Sterilization with UV light is a process that is sometimes used where materials are sensitive to high temperatures and where all surfaces can be penetrated with UV light. Nitrogen dioxide was developed as a more environmentally friendly sterilant similar to ethylene oxide. X-Ray is a new type of radiation sterilization that is being developed as a high-speed alternative to Gamma and eBeam, but X-Ray sterilization also has the advantage of being able to control a narrower dose range than Gamma and eBeam processes.  

Consensus Standards for Sterilization Validation

There are also additional supporting standards that you will need for validation of your sterilization process. The following is a partial list of the standards you might consider:

  • ISO 11737-1:2018, Bioburden Testing for Aerobic Bacteria and Fungi
  • USP<51> Antimicrobial Effectiveness Test
    • Candida albicans (a yeast…yeasts are a form of fungus)
    • Aspergillus brasiliensis (a filamentous mold…also a fungus)
    • Escherichia coli (a bacterium…better known as “E. coli”)
    • Pseudomonas aeruginosa (a bacterium….very problematic industrially)
    • Staphylococcus aureus (a bacterium…better known as “Staph”
  • USP<61> Bioburden or Microbial Limits Test (Total Aerobic Microbial Count = TAMC; Total Yeast and Mold Count = TYMC)
  • USP<62> Objectionable Organisms or Pathogens Tests
  • USP<63> Mycoplasma Tests
  • USP<71> Bacteriostasis/Fungistasis (i.e., B/F) Sterility Tests
  • ISO 11138-1:2017, Sterilization of health care products – Biological Indicators – Part 1: General Requirements
  • ISO 111140-5:2017, Sterilization of health care products – Chemical indicators – Part 5: Class 2 indicators for Bowie and Dick air removal test sheets and packs
  • ISO 17664-1:2021, Processing of health care products – Information to be provided by the medical device manufacturer for the processing of medical devices – Part 1: Critical and semi-critical medical devices

Aging and Shelf-life Testing

The current standard for accelerated aging studies is ASTM F1980:2021 “Standard Guide for Accelerated Aging of Sterile Barrier Systems and Medical Devices has been revised and recently released to include medical devices.” Jan Gates explains that the “and” used to say “for.” The language was updated with more information on product humidity effects to go with the title. Jan was kind enough to write a Shelf-life Testing Protocol for us based on this new version of the standard. The protocol includes requirements for real-time and accelerated age testing of a product. If you need basic training on how to validate the shelf-life of your device, we have a webinar for sale on sterility and shelf-life. We also recorded an updated webinar on January 19, 2023, as part of the FDA eSTAR updates to our 510(k) Course.

Distribution Conditioning Tests & Packaging Performance Tests

There are also standards for distribution conditioning tests (i.e., ASTM D4169-22). Jan Gates was kind enough to write a 20-page Distribution Conditioning Shipping Qualification Protocol for Medical Device Academy based upon the ASTM standard. The protocol is available for purchase at the link above. Jan also wrote an 18-page Packaging Performance Testing Protocol for our customers in accordance with ISO 11607-1 and ISO 11607-2.

Where can you find a procedure for each sterilization method?

ISO 13485:2016, Clause 7.5.7 is specific to the “Particular requirements for validation of processes for sterilization and sterile barrier systems.” This clause includes the requirement to establish procedures for sterilization validation and validation of your sterile barrier systems. Even if your company uses a protocol and procedures established by a contract manufacturer, you still need to establish an internal procedure(s) to meet this requirement if you have sterile products. The following is a list of procedures sold by Medical Device Academy:

What is the process flow for contract sterilization?

Most device manufacturers do not sterilize their devices in-house. Instead, sterilization is outsourced to a contract sterilizer. The process flow diagram below is a hypothetical process flow diagram for a contract sterilization process. The only step not included in this process flow is the incubation of biological indicators because gamma and eBeam sterilization processes use dosimeters instead of biological indicators. The nature of biological indicators is also changing rapidly because manufacturers are developing “rapid test” biological indicators. In 2008 I worked extensively with self-contained biological indicators that eliminated the need to use an aseptic technique to transfer biological indicators into culture media. In addition, I complete an incubation reduction study to validate a shorter 48-hour incubation cycle instead of the typical 7-day sterility test. Terragene is one of the manufacturers developing next-generation technology for biological indicators that allows the results to be read within seconds instead of 48 hours. This next-generation technology also incorporates barcode readers and networked readers to ensure traceability to each biological indicator and reader.

Generic Sterilization Process Flow Diagram 731x1024 How to select and help validate the best sterilization method?

What information should serialized labels include for contract sterilizers?

In the “olden days” (c. 2005), I used to print out labels for each pallet that we shipped to the Isomedix facility in Northboro, MA. The label identified who the product was from and what we wanted Isomedix to do with the product (e.g., gamma sterilize at 25-40 kGy). At the time, we were just beginning to incorporate barcodes into on-demand labeling to facilitate traceability. 18 years later, companies are still stalling the implementation of on-demand barcoded labels. Almost every shipping dock has a barcode reader, and the technology is inexpensive. Therefore, you should consider creating a template for on-demand barcoded labels with all the information listed below. This will reduce the risk of errors by the contract sterilizer and enable you to identify when a mistake was made quickly. Contract sterilizers should also demand this information on product labeling as an added risk control. All biological indicators and dosimeters are labeled with UDI barcodes now. Therefore, contract sterilizers should be able to create robust process controls that ensure traceability between barcodes on your labeled product with barcodes on the biological indicator or dosimeter.

2 Customer Prints Serialized Labels 1024x816 How to select and help validate the best sterilization method?

Posted in: Sterilization Validation, Validation

Leave a Comment (0) →

ISO 19011 – Do you need this quality system auditing standard?

Read this article to learn why ISO 19011 standard is a vital guidance for anyone that audits quality systems or manages an audit program.

What is ISO 19011?

ISO 19011 is a seven-part international standard for auditing management systems. The standard defines the eight principles of auditing (e.g., the process approach to auditing), provides guidance on managing audit programs and conducting audits, and includes recommendations for evaluating people for competency. There is also an appendix with details on conducting on-site and remote audits.

If you have ever taken a lead auditor course for ISO 13485, or one of the other quality management system standards, one of the critical handouts for the class should have been ISO 19011. The title is “Guidelines for Auditing Quality Management Systems.” In 2018, ISO 19011 was updated, and the changes were not superficial. If you need to purchase a copy of ISO 19011:2018, the Estonian Center for Standardization and Accreditation is the least expensive source we know.

ISO 19011 covers the topic of quality management system auditing. This Standard provides guidance on managing audit programs, conducting internal and external audits, and determining auditor competency.  One of the most common points of confusion in the lead auditor course is the difference between first, second, and third-party audits. In the first edition of this Standard, the difference between first, second, and third-party audits was just a note at the bottom of page one and the top of page two. The note was also not clear. In the second edition of 19011, in Table 1 (reproduced below), the difference between these three types of auditing is crystal clear. Table 1 was modified further in the 3rd edition to include a bottom row that remains unchanged in the 3rd edition, released in 2018.

Types of Audits Table 1 1024x205 ISO 19011   Do you need this quality system auditing standard?

Figure 1, found in Clause 5.1 of the 2nd edition, was combined with Figure 2, found in Clause 6.1 of the 2nd edition. The combined figure is now Figure 1 in the 3rd edition. The combined scope of Figure 1 is now a “Process flow for the management of an audit program” and a “Process flow for conducting an audit.” The figure categorizes the various stages of audit program management and conducting an audit into the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle. We highly recommend this style for presenting any process in your internal procedures as an example of best practices in writing an SOP. The flow chart even references each of the clauses in the Standard.

The 2018 version still includes an opening meeting checklist (i.e., Clause 6.4.3) and a closing meeting checklist (i.e., Clause 6.4.10). Figure 3 in the 2nd edition, “Overview of the process of collecting and verifying information,” was a poor example of a flow chart. The committee did not update the figure when the standard was updated for the 3rd edition. Therefore, we updated the figure below to provide additional traceability to the Clauses of the Standard. If you incorporate this figure into your quality auditing procedure, you should substitute references to your procedure’s sections instead of the clauses of the standard.

Figure 2 ISO 19011 2018 1024x702 ISO 19011   Do you need this quality system auditing standard?

Competency Requirements in ISO 19011

Many audit procedures neglect to define the qualifications and methods for determining the competency of the audit program manager. Clause 5.3.2 tells you how. Put it in your own procedure. Most of the procedures we read include qualifications for a “Lead Auditor,” but we seldom see anything regarding competency. Unfortunately, this Standard only explicitly addresses the “Lead Auditor” competency in a two-sentence paragraph—Clause 7.2.5. When we teach people how to be Lead Auditors, we spend more than an hour on this topic alone.

The Standard would be more effective by providing an example of how third-party auditors become qualified as a Lead Auditor. Third-party accreditation requires the auditor to be an “acting lead” for audit preparation, opening meetings, conducting the audit, closing meetings, and final preparation/distribution of the audit report. This must be performed for 15 certification audits (i.e., – Stage 2 certification or re-certification), and another qualified lead auditor must evaluate you and provide feedback.

Appendices in ISO 19011

The appendices were the last significant additions to this Standard in 2011 (i.e., 2nd edition). Annex A provided examples of discipline-specific knowledge and skills of auditors. This section was eliminated from the 3rd edition of ISO 19011:

“Due to the large number of individual management system standards, it would not be practical to include competence requirements for all disciplines.” – Copied from the Foreward

I think providing adding a short Annex to each management system standard that defines recommended discipline-specific knowledge would be helpful. Still, that kind of change would need to be initiated with the next version of ISO 9001.

Appendix B in the 2nd edition is now Appendix A in the 3rd edition of ISO 19011. A table (Table A.1 – Audit Methods) compares conducting on-site and remote audits. We were pleased to see that conducting interviews is a significant part of remote auditing in this table. Section A.17 in the appendix provides suggestions for conducting interviews. Still, if you exhibit all 13 professional behavior traits found in Clause 7.2.2, you don’t need advice on speaking with people. For the rest of us mortals, we could use a five-day course on interviewing alone. To improve your skills in this area, ask an experienced auditor with solid interviewing skills to watch and comment on a recording of a virtual audit you perform. Watching yourself audit is cringe-worthy, but we guarantee you will improve.

What are the primary changes to the 2018 version of the standard?

There are seven main differences between the second edition, published in 2011, and the third edition of ISO 19011, released in 2018:

  1. addition of a seventh principle of auditing in sub-clause 4(g) (i.e., risk-based approach);
  2. more guidance on audit program management in Clause 5, including audit program risk;
  3. expansion of Clause 6 on conducting an audit–especially Clause 6.3 on audit planning;
  4. expansion of auditor competence requirements in Clause 7;
  5. updating of terminology to emphasize processes rather than objects;
  6. removal of an annex containing competence requirements for specific quality management systems;
  7. expansion of Annex A to include guidance on new auditing concepts such as remote audits.

Risk-based auditing is the most significant change in the 2018 version of ISO 19011

One of the main differences between ISO 19011:2018 and the previous 2011 version is the addition of a “risk-based approach” to the principles of auditing. Specifically, clause 4(g) of the guidelines for auditing management systems is, “The risk-based approach should substantively influence the planning, conducting and reporting of audits to ensure that audits are focused on matters that are significant for the audit client, and for achieving the audit program objectives.” A lot of people are unsure of what is meant by a risk-based approach. Still, the key to understanding this is to focus on the definition of risk. From a product perspective, the risk is the “combination of the probability of occurrence of harm and the severity of that harm.” From a process perspective, the risk is the “effect of uncertainty on an expected result” (ISO 9001:2015, clause 3.09). Therefore, auditors should emphasize medical devices with the highest severity of harm and devices with a high probability of hazards or hazardous situations. When an auditor focuses on a process rather than a specific medical device, auditors should emphasize any processes that are not under control and any recent process changes.

animal nature reptile animal world ISO 19011   Do you need this quality system auditing standard?

What is risk-based auditing?

Risk-based auditing considers the risks of failing to achieve audit objectives and the opportunities created by choosing various audit methods and strategies. For example, a desktop audit of procedures might be appropriate if you are conducting your first internal audit for a new quality system. Alternatively, a desktop audit would be a waste of time if you are auditing a mature quality system where very few changes to procedures have been made in the past year. Using the element approach to auditing is unlikely to add much value. Audits are meant to be a sampling. Therefore, you should focus on areas of importance where previous nonconformities were identified, any new products or processes, and anything that changed significantly.

Auditor selection should also be risk-based

Suppose you are conducting a supplier audit as part of your initial supplier qualification for a critical component supplier or contract manufacturer. In that case, you should consider doing a team audit with a multi-disciplinary team. This is a risk-based approach to the supplier qualification process, which ensures that subject matter experts evaluate each process instead of auditors with a general quality assurance background. This approach also forces more of your personnel to introduce themselves to the new supplier, and the audit will develop more reliable communication channels between your two companies. Alternatively, if you are conducting a routine internal audit of a production process, you might select a new lead auditor to conduct the audit. You don’t expect any significant findings in a routine internal audit of an established production process. In your role as an audit program manager, you need to match the new lead auditor to a process that will force them to look at all aspects of the process approach to auditing. Specifically, process validation, calibration, maintenance, and process monitoring may not apply to other administrative process areas, such as purchasing.

Risk-based auditing should influence your auditing schedule

The frequency of auditing suppliers and internal process areas should reflect the associated risks. Therefore, when you create or update your auditing schedule, you should consider the risk level of the products being audited and the process being audited. Production processes with a moderate or high level of non-conforming products may need to be audited more than once yearly. Still, a supplier with an excellent track record of extremely high quality and on-time delivery may be audited in alternating years. If you previously scheduled a remote audit, you may want to alternate to conducting an on-site audit the next time.

The duration of your audits should not always be the same either. Suppose one production process makes one product in low volume, and another production process makes multiple products in high volume. In that case, you should not schedule a two-hour internal audit for both processes every year. The low-volume production process may only need a one-hour audit once per year. In contrast, the high-volume process may require a four-hour internal audit or multiple annual audits.

Risk-based auditing applied to remote supplier auditing

The risk-based auditing approach was added to ISO 19011:2018 as the seventh principle of auditing. This represents the most significant change to that standard, but how does it apply to remote auditing? Despite the opportunities created by remote auditing, there are also risks associated with auditing suppliers remotely. People worry about auditees hiding hazardous situations or unacceptable environmental conditions such as filth or disrepair. However, unacceptable cleanliness and maintenance practices don’t happen overnight. Therefore, you should expect a clean and well-maintained facility to remain that way. One approach is to alternate between remote and on-site audits to verify the overall condition of a supplier’s facility. Therefore, the risk of auditees hiding objective evidence is more an issue of trust than a highly probable occurrence.

The more probable risks associated with remote auditing are related to the potential lack of availability of records. This is especially important for paper-based quality systems. Most people try to address this risk by scanning paper documents and records, but scanning documents have limited value. Scanning paper documents is more efficiently performed in a large batch by an automated or semi-automated process. Also, auditors and inspectors typically focus on the most recent records, and auditors and inspectors rarely sample 100% of the records. Therefore, the best risk controls include the following:

  • Ask a guide to send a digital picture of the record.
  • Use a tripod-mounted HD webcam focused on a music stand or similar surface.
  • Ask the auditee to read the document while you take notes.

In our experience, you will probably rely on all three risk controls, but it is unlikely to delay the audit. However, in response to the limited physical access to medical device facilities and personnel, certification bodies are sending out questionnaires to assess the risk of being unable to achieve audit objectives or cover the required scope of surveillance and recertification audits. As the audit program manager, you can reduce these risks by working with supply chain managers to develop new supplier questionnaires that specifically ask questions about the capability of supporting audits remotely. In particular, it would be essential to obtain facility maps to identify areas with inadequate cellular coverage and identify records that are only available in hardcopy format.

Posted in: Auditing, ISO Auditing, Remote Auditing

Leave a Comment (1) →

Software security, what is the best time to test cybersecurity?

The new US FDA draft cybersecurity guidance requires you to test cybersecurity, but when should you conduct software security testing?

The 2022 draft cybersecurity guidance from the FDA emphasizes the need to design devices to be secure and the need to design devices capable of reducing emerging cybersecurity risks throughout the total product lifecycle. Designing devices for security must be built into your original design plan, or you will need to modify your device for improved security just to obtain initial 510(k) clearance from the FDA. What is not clear from the guidance or standards is when you need to conduct security testing or repeat tests.

Planning Cybersecurity Tests

As with all quality system processes, cybersecurity testing should begin with a plan. There are two models typically used for the design and development process: Waterfall Diagram (typical of hardware development) and V-Diagram (typical of software development).

waterfall fda Software security, what is the best time to test cybersecurity?

Waterfall Diagram

Software Validation and Verification 1 Software security, what is the best time to test cybersecurity?


How are design plans for SaMD different from other design plans?

Most of the verification testing for software as a medical device (SaMD) is 1) conducted virtually, 2) tests software code in a “sandbox,” and 3) involves internally developed testing protocols. In contrast, verification testing for other types of devices involves 1) physical devices, 2) testing at a 3rd party lab, and 3) involves international standards and testing methods. The biggest differences between SaMD verification testing and other device verification testing are the speed and cost of the testing. SaMD verification is much faster and less expensive. Therefore, if your software design documentation is efficient, you can complete more design iterations. This is why software developers use the V-diagram to model the design and development process instead of the “waterfall” diagram.

Where do the requirements to test cybersecurity belong in your design plan?

A design plan documents the design and development process for your device. You must establish, maintain, and update the plan as the project progresses. There is no required format, but auditors and the FDA will audit your Design History File (DHF) for compliance with your plan. You are required to document the following content in your plan:

  • Stages of development
  • Reviews at each design and development stage
  • Verification, validation, and design transfer activities at each stage
  • Responsibilities and authorities for the design project
  • Methods you are using to ensure traceability of user needs, software hazards, software requirements, software design specifications, and software testing reports
  • Human resources needed for your design project, including competency

Software Design Inputs

In the early stages of the software development lifecycle, you must select an appropriate threat model and perform a hazard analysis for software security. These security hazards need to be included as design inputs in your software requirements specification (SRS). The need for updateability and patchability should also be included as design inputs. 

In parallel with your SRS, you will need to create a User Specification. The SRS and User Specification will determine the use cases and call-flow views that require verification testing later in your software development process. After the SRS has been approved, you will need to create a software design specification (SDS). Each item in the SDS should be traceable to an item in the SRS. The SDS items that trace to security hazards are your risk controls. Each risk control will require you to test cybersecurity to verify risk control effectiveness. At this point, you will need to create your testing protocols for security.

System Testing Protocols to Test Cybersecurity

Testing protocols should include a boundary analysis and rationale for boundary assumptions. Testing protocols should also include vulnerability testing. The FDA recommends the following vulnerability testing:

  1. Abuse cases, malformed, and unexpected inputs,
    1. Robustness
    2. Fuzz testing
  2. Attack surface analysis,
  3. Vulnerability chaining,
  4. Closed box testing of known vulnerability scanning,
  5. Software composition analysis of binary executable files, and
  6. Static and dynamic code analysis, including testing for credentials that are “hardcoded,” default, easily guessed, and easily compromised.

Does your development budget include security testing? 

Design control training traditionally emphasizes the importance of “freezing” design outputs before starting verification testing to prevent the need for repeating any of the verification testing. The reason for this is that verification testing is expensive, and it is time-consuming to produce additional verification samples. In contrast, SaMD is guaranteed to be changed multiple times during the verification testing process as software bugs are identified. Therefore, software developers focus on the velocity of developing code and testing that code. One exception to this is penetration testing. Penetration testing is usually conducted once your code is final because it is more expensive than other software verification and validation testing and it would need to be repeated each time the software is updated or patched.

Penetration Testing

Penetration testing is another method used to test cybersecurity that would probably be conducted in parallel with simulated use testing to validate performance and the effectiveness of human factors risk controls. Penetration testing could be at the system level in a sandbox environment, or it can be performed on a sample device in a simulated use environment. Your penetration testing documentation should include the following:

  1. independence and technical expertise
  2. scope of testing
  3. duration of testing
  4. testing employed, and
  5. test results, findings, and observations

Postmarket cybersecurity management

For CE Marked products, there is a requirement for a postmarket surveillance plan (i.e., PMS plan) to be submitted as part of your technical file. The US FDA does not currently have this requirement for Class 1 and Class 2 devices, but Class 3 devices (i.e., PMA) and devices with humanitarian device exemptions (HDE)  are required to submit a PMS plan as part of the premarket submission. The US FDA also requires a postmarket cybersecurity management plan to be submitted for premarket submissions of Class 2 and Class 3 devices. You should create your postmarket cybersecurity management plan during your verification and validation activities, and the final version should be approved at the time of product release.

If you need additional resources or training related to cybersecurity, you may be interested in the following:

Posted in: Cybersecurity, Software Verification and Validation

Leave a Comment (0) →

Four easy ways 510k and De Novo content is different

It’s a common misconception that FDA De Novo content is very different from FDA 510k submission content, but is that true?

What do you think the De Novo content differences are?

Most people think the difference between a 510k and a De Novo is time and money. That conclusion is based upon a very important assumption: a 510k will not require clinical data, and a De Novo will require clinical data. That assumption is not always correct. 10-15% of 510k submissions include clinical data to support the performance claims, and last year our team submitted three De Novo submissions that did not include any clinical data. So what are the differences between a 510k and a De Novo content?

We use the same FDA eSTAR template for both types of FDA submissions, and on the first page of the eSTAR template, we identify if the submission is a 510k or De Novo. If we select De Novo, the eSTAR will be pre-populated with four unique De Novo content requirements that are not found in a 510k. The four unique requirements are:

  1. identifying alternative practices and procedures for the same indications
  2. recommending a classification, providing a justification for that classification, and explaining what efforts were taken to identify a suitable 510k product code
  3. providing a written benefit/risk analysis starting with the clinical benefits of your device
  4. recommendations for special controls for your new product code based upon the risks to health and the mitigation measures for each risk

Alternate practices and procedures 1024x547 Four easy ways 510k and De Novo content is different

What alternative practices and procedures are currently available?

The unique De Novo content requirement is to provide a description of alternative practices and procedures for treatment or diagnosis of the same indications that you are proposing for your subject device. This is a subsection of the device description section in the FDA eSTAR template. Your should description should include other 510k-cleared products, drugs, and even products that have similar indications but are not identical. The description of alternative practices and procedures must also be attached as a document in the section for benefits, risks, and mitigation measures. To maintain consistency throughout your submission, you should create the document for attachment first and copy and paste the content into the text box at the end of the device description section.

You need to recommend a classification in your De Novo

The unique De Novo content requirement is found in a section titled “Classification.” There is a shorter classification section included in 510k submissions, but the 510k version only has four cells. The first three are populated by selecting one of the options from a dropdown menu, and the fourth cell is only used if your subject device includes other product classification codes.

Classification 1024x346 Four easy ways 510k and De Novo content is different

The De Novo version of the eSTAR is identical for the first row of the classification section, but then you must select a proposed product classification (i.e., Class 1 or Class 2) in accordance with FDA Classification Procedures (i.e., 21 CFR 860). The third cell is a text box for you to enter your justification for the proposed classification. Next, the FDA requires you to enter a proposed classification name. Finally, at the end of the classification section, the FDA requires that you provide a classification summary or reference to a previous NSE 510k submission.

A Benefit/Risk Analysis is required in the De Novo Content

For new devices, the FDA uses a benefit/risk analysis to decide if a device should be authorized for marketing in the USA.  This process includes humanitarian device exemptions, De Novo applications, and Premarket Approval submissions. The FDA has a guidance document that provides guidance for FDA reviewers and the industry. The most important aspect is, to begin with, the benefits of the device and to provide a quantitative comparison of benefits and risks. Many De Novo submissions have been rejected because the submitter did not provide objective evidence of clinical benefits for the subject device.

Benefit Risk Analysis 1024x210 Four easy ways 510k and De Novo content is different

The FDA guidance documents are helpful for creating a benefit/risk analysis, but you can also find information in the ISO/TR 24971:2020–the guidance for the application of ISO 14971:2019. Our company also includes a template for a benefit/risk analysis as part of our risk management procedure (i.e., SYS-010).

What are your recommended Special Controls?

In FDA De Novo Classification Decision Summaries, there is a table provided that identifies the identified risks to health and the recommended mitigation measures for each risk category. In the FDA eSTAR, you are required to add a similar table for De Novo content. The only difference between the table in summary and the eSTAR is that the eSTAR table has a third column where the FDA wants you to reference the supporting data provided for each mitigation measure–including the document and page within the document. The FDA also provided an example table in the eSTAR, copied below.

Risk Mitigation Table Four easy ways 510k and De Novo content is different

The above table for the risks to health and mitigations needs to be translated into a list of recommended Special Controls for Class II devices. Since most De Novo applications are for Class II devices, you will need to convert each of your mitigations into a corresponding Special Control and type these controls into the text box provided in the FDA eSTAR.

Special Controls Four easy ways 510k and De Novo content is different

What else is different from a 510k?

There are no additional mandatory elements that you need to include in a De Novo application, but there are several elements of a 510k submission that are not included in a De Novo. The most obvious of these sections is the Substantial Equivalence Comparison Table in the section labeled “Predicates and Substantial Equivalence.” Another difference is that you are more likely to need clinical data to support a De Novo application than for a 510k submission. It is also possible that subsequent 510k submissions for the same product code may not need to provide clinical data because the 510k process only requires a demonstration of substantial equivalence rather than clinical benefits outweighing risks to health. The FDA review time for a Traditional 510(k) varied between 190 and 210 days in 2022, while the De Novo review timeline averaged 390 days in  2022. Finally, the FDA user fees for 510k submissions are far less than those for a De Novo application.

Posted in: 510(k), De Novo

Leave a Comment (0) →

Why modernize 21 CFR 820 to ISO 13485?

The FDA patches the regulations with guidance documents, but there is a desperate need to modernize 21 CFR 820 to ISO 13485.

FDA Proposed Amendment to 21 CFR 820

On February 23, 2022, the FDA published a proposed rule for medical device quality system regulation amendments. The FDA planned to implement amended regulations within 12 months, but the consensus of the device industry is that a transition of several years would be necessary. In the proposed rule, the FDA justifies the need for amended regulations based on the “redundancy of effort to comply with two substantially similar requirements,” creating inefficiencies. In public presentations, the FDA supporting arguments for the proposed quality system rule change relies heavily upon comparing similarities between 21 CFR 820 and ISO 13485. However, the comparison table provided is quite vague (see the table from page 2 of FDA’s presentation reproduced below). The FDA also provided estimates of projected cost savings resulting from the proposed rule. What is completely absent from the discussion of the proposed rule is any mention of the need to modernize 21 CFR 820.

Overview of Similarities and Differences between QSR and ISO 13485 1006x1024 Why modernize 21 CFR 820 to ISO 13485?

Are the requirements “substantively similar”?

The above table provided by the FDA claims that the requirements of 21 CFR 820 are substantively similar to the requirements of ISO 13485. However, there are some some aspects of ISO 13485 that will modernize 21 CFR 820. The areas of impact are: 1) software, 2) risk management, 3) human factors or usability engineering, and 4) post-market surveillance. The paragraphs below identify the applicable clauses of ISO 13485 where each of the four areas are covered.

Modernize 21 CFR 820 to include software and software security

Despite the limited proliferation of software in medical devices during the 1990s, 21 CFR 820 includes seven references to software. However there are some Clauses of ISO 13485 that reference software that are not covered in the QSR. Modernizing 21 CFR 820 to reference ISO 13485 will incorporate these additional areas of applicability. Clause 4.1.6 includes a requirement for validation of quality system software. Clause 7.6 includes a requirement for validation of software used to manage calibrated devices used for monitoring and measurement. Clause 7.3 includes a requirement for validation of software embedded in devices, but that requirement was already included in 21 CFR 820.30. The FDA can modernize 21 CFR 820 further by defining Software as a Medical Device (SaMD), referencing IEC 62304 for management of the software development lifecycle, referencing IEC/TR 80002-1 for hazard analysis of software, referencing AAMI TIR57 for cybersecurity, and referencing ISO 27001 for network security. Currently the FDA strategy is to implement guidance documents for cybersecurity and software validation requirements, but ISO 13485 only references IEC 62304. Then only aspect of 21 CFR 820 that appears to be adequate with regard to software is validation of software used for automation in 21 CFR 820.75. This requirement is similar to Clause 7.5.6 (i.e., validation of processes for production and service provisions).

Does 21 CFR 820 adequately cover risk management?

The FDA already recognizes ISO 14971:2019 as the standard for risk management of medical devices. However, risk is only mentioned once in 21 CFR 820. In order to modernize 21 CFR 820, it will be necessary for the FDA to identify how risk should be integrated throughout the quality system requirements. The FDA recently conducted two webinars related to risk management of medical devices, but implementing a risk-based approach to quality systems is a struggle for companies that already have ISO 13485 certification. Therefore, a guidance document with examples of how to implement a risk-based approach to quality system implementation would be very helpful to the medical device industry. 

Modernize 21 CFR 820 to include Human Factors and Usability Engineering

ISO 13485 references IEC 62366-1 as the applicable standard for usability engineering requirements, but there is no similar requirement found in 21 CFR 820. Therefore, human factors is an area where 21 CFR 820 needs to be modernized. The FDA has released guidance documents for the human factors content to be included in a 510k pre-market notification, but the guidance was released in 2016 and the guidance does not reflect the FDA’s current thoughts on human factors / usability engineering best practices. The FDA recently released a draft guidance for the format and content of human factors testing in a pre-market 510k submission, but that document is not a final guidance document and there is no mention of human factors, usability engineering, or even use errors in 21 CFR 820. Device manufacturers should be creating work instructions for use-related risk analysis (URRA) and fault-tree analysis to estimate the risks associated with use errors as identified the draft guidance. These work instructions will also need to be linked with the design and development process and the post-market surveillance process.

Modernize 21 CFR 820 to include Post-Market Surveillance

ISO/TR 20416:2020 is a new standard specific to post-market surveillance, but it is not recognized by the FDA. There is also no section of 21 CFR 820 that includes a post-market surveillance requirement. The FDA QSR focuses on reactive elements such as:

  • 21 CFR 820.100 – CAPA
  • 21 CFR 820.198 – Complaint Handling
  • 21 CFR 803 – Medical Device Reporting
  • 21 CFR 820.200 – Servicing
  • 21 CFR 820.250 – Statistical Techniques

The FDA does occasionally require 522 Post-Market Surveillance Studies for devices that demonstrate risks that require post-market safety studies. In addition, most Class 3 devices are required to conduct post-approval studies (PAS). For Class 3 devices, the FDA requires the submitter provide a plan for a post-market study. Once the study plan is accepted by the FDA, the manufacturer must report on the progress of the study. Upon completion of the study, most manufacturers are not required to continue PMS.

How will the FDA enforce compliance with ISO 13485?

It is not clear how the FDA would enforce compliance with Clause 8.2.1 in ISO 13485, because there is no substantively equivalent requirement in the current 21 CFR 820 regulations. The QSR is 26 years old, and the regulation does not mention cybersecurity, human factors, or post-market surveillance. Risk is only mentioned once by the regulation, and software is only mentioned seven times. The FDA has “patched” the regulations through guidance documents, but there is a desperate need for new regulations that include critical elements. The transition of quality system requirements for the USA from 21 CFR 820 to ISO 13485:2016 will force regulators to establish policies for compliance with all of the quality system elements that are not in 21 CFR 820.

Companies that do not already have ISO 13485 certification should be proactive by 1) updating their quality system to comply with the ISO 13485 standard and 2) adopting the best practices outlined in the following related standards:

  • AAMI/TIR57:2016 – Principles For Medical Device Security – Risk Management
  • IEC 62366-1:2015 – Medical devices — Part 1: Application of usability engineering to medical devices
  • ISO/TR 20416:2020 – Medical devices — Post-market surveillance for manufacturers
  • ISO 14971:2019 – Medical Devices – Application Of Risk Management To Medical Devices
  • IEC 62304:2015 – Medical Device Software – Software Life Cycle Processes
  • ISO/TR 80002-1:2009 – Medical device software — Part 1: Guidance on the application of ISO 14971 to medical device software
  • ISO/TR 80002-2:2017 – Medical device software — Part 2: Validation of software for medical device quality systems

What is the potential impact of the US FDA requiring software, risk management, cybersecurity, human factors, and post-market surveillance as part of a medical device company’s quality system?

Posted in: FDA, Human Factors, ISO 13485:2016, Post-Market Surveillance, Quality Management System, Software Verification and Validation

Leave a Comment (0) →

The best human factors questions in every successful FDA meeting are?

What are the best human factors questions to ask the FDA during a pre-submission meeting, and what information content do you need in a 510k?

Talk to the FDA before human factors validation

The FDA did not start enforcing the requirement to apply human factors and usability engineering to medical device design until 2017 because the final version of the human factors guidance document was not released until February 3, 2016. Approximately ninety percent of the human factors testing reports submitted to the FDA in 510k pre-market submissions are deficient because the 510k submission content only includes the final summative testing report. The FDA needs a complete usability engineering file, and the human factors information needs to comply with FDA guidelines for the format and content of a 510k pre-market submission–not just IEC 62366-1:2015.

What human factors information does the FDA want?

For several years, FDA submission deficiency letters indicated that you should not include the frequency of occurrence in your estimation of use-related risks, but the FDA never provided this information in a guidance document. On December 9, 2022, the FDA finally released a draft human factors guidance regarding the format and content of a 510k pre-market submission. The new draft guidance includes the requirement for a use-related risk analysis (URRA) in table 2 (copied below).

Table 2 example of tabular format for the URRA 1024x354 The best human factors questions in every successful FDA meeting are?

In this new draft FDA guidance, the FDA identifies three different human factors submission categories. For the first category, only a conclusion and high-level summary are needed. For the second category, a user specification is also needed. For the third category, you need a comprehensive human factors engineering report with the following elements described in Section IV of the draft FDA guidance:

Submission Category 1, 2, and 3

  • Conclusion and high-level summary

Submission Category 2 and 3

  • Descriptions of intended device users, uses, use environments, and training
  • Description of the device-user interface
  • Summary of known use problems

Submission Category 3 only

  • Summary of preliminary analyses and evaluations
  • Use-related risk analysis to analyze hazards and risks associated with the use of the device
  • Identification and description of critical tasks
  • Details of validation testing of the final design

Before you spend tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars on human factors testing, you want to make sure the FDA agrees with your human factors testing plan. Otherwise, you will pay for the testing twice: once for your initial submission and a second time in your response to the FDA request for additional information to address deficiencies. Testing can cost more than your electrical safety testing. The facility needs to have the right equipment and space for the testing, you need support personnel to set up the equipment, you need to recruit participants, you need to compensate participants, and you need device samples.

When can you ask the FDA human factors questions?

The FDA cannot provide consulting advice on a submission, and the agency will not review data during pre-submission meetings. The FDA can provide feedback on protocols, specifications, and scientific justifications. Therefore, you should submit questions to the FDA in a pre-submission when you have a draft protocol, a draft specification, or a draft justification for why a task is not critical. Pre-submissions are “non-binding.” You can change your design and approach to human factors. Therefore, don’t wait until your information is 100% finalized. Share your documentation at the draft stage during the development phase and before your design freeze. You need these answers when you are planning a study and obtaining quotes. 

What are the best human factors questions to ask in a pre-sub?

In the FDA guidance for pre-submission meetings, the FDA provides suggested questions to ask:

  • Does the Agency have comments on our proposed human factors engineering process?
  • Is the attached use-related risk analysis plan adequate? Does the Agency agree that we have identified all the critical tasks?
  • Does the Agency agree with our proposed test participant recruitment plan for the human factors validation testing?

The above examples are only suggestions, but the best approach is to provide a brief example of what the human factors information will look like and ask the FDA to comment on the examples. The FDA does not have time to review data during a pre-sub meeting, but the FDA can review a few rows extracted from your URRA and comment on your proposed approach to the human factors process.

Human factors questions that are not appropriate

The FDA pre-submission guidance cautions you only to ask 3-4 questions for each meeting request because the FDA has difficulty answering more questions in a 60-minute teleconference. Therefore, you should not ask questions already answered in the FDA guidance. The new draft guidance includes examples of when a device modification can leverage existing human factors information and when new information is needed to support a premarket submission. Instead of asking a question specific to leveraging existing human factors information, instead, provide your rationale for leveraging existing data and ask if the FDA has any concerns with your overall approach to human factors.

Recommended human factors action items

Create a procedure for your human factors process that includes detailed instructions for creating the information required in a usability engineering report and templates for each document.

Posted in: 510(k), FDA, Human Factors, Usability

Leave a Comment (0) →

Software validation documentation for a medical device

Learn why you need to start with software validation documentation before you jump into software development.

When do you create software validation documentation for a medical device or IVD?

At least once a week, I speak with the founder of a new MedTech company that developed a new software application as a medical device (SaMD). The founder will ask me to explain the process for obtaining a 510(k), and they want help with software validation documentation. Many people I speak with have never even heard of IEC 62304.

Even though they already have a working application, usually, validation documentation has not even been started. Although you can create all of your software validation documentation after you create a working application, certain tasks are important to perform before you develop software code. Jumping into software development without the foundational documentation will not get your device to market faster. Instead, you will struggle to create documentation retroactively, and the process will be slower. In the end, the result will be a frustrating delay in the launch of your device.

What are the 11 software validation documents required by the FDA?

In 2005 the FDA released a guidance document outlining software validation documentation content required for a premarket submission. There were 11 documents identified in that guidance:

software validation documentation 1024x385 Software validation documentation for a medical device

What the FDA guidance fails to explain is that some of these documents need to be created before software development begins, or your software validation documentation will be missing critical design elements. Therefore, it is important to create a software development plan that schedules activities that result in those documents at the right time. In contrast, four of the eleven documents can wait until your software development is complete.

Which of the software validation documents can wait until the end?

The level of concern only determines what documents the FDA wants to review in a submission rather than what documents are needed for a design history file. In fact, the level of concern (LOC) document is no longer required as a separate document in premarket submissions using the FDA eSTAR template because the template already incorporates the questions that document your LOC. The revision level history document is simply a summary of revisions made to the software during the development process, and that document can be created manually or automatically at the end of the process, or the revision level history can be a living document that is created as changes are made. The traceability matrix can also be a living document created as changes are made, but its only purpose is to act as a tool to provide traceability from hazards to software requirements, to design specifications, and finally to verification and validation reports. Other software tools, such as Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Software, are designed to ensure the traceability of every hazard and requirement throughout the entire development process. Finally, unresolved anomalies should only be documented at the time of submission. The list may be incomplete until all verification and validation testing is completed, and the list should be the shortest at the time of submission.

What documentation will be created near the end of development?

The software design specification (SDS) is typically a living document until your development process is completed, and you may need to update the SDS after the initial software release to add new features, maintain interoperability with software accessories, or change security controls. The SDS can not begin, however, until you have software requirements and the basic architecture defined. The verification and validation activities are discrete documents created after each revision of the SDS and must therefore be one of the last documents created–especially when provided to the FDA as a summary of the verification and validation efforts.

Which validation documents do you need first?

At the beginning of software development, you need a procedure(s) that defines your software development process. That procedure should have a section that explains the software development environment–including how patches and upgrades will be controlled and released. If you don’t have a quality system procedure that defines your development process, then each developer may document their coding and validation activities differently. That does not mean that you can’t improve or change the procedure once development has begun, but we recommend limiting the implementation of a revised procedure when making major software changes and discussing how revisions will be implemented for any work that remains in progress or has already been completed.

When do the remaining software validation documents get created?

The remaining four software validation documents required for a premarket submission to the FDA are:

  1. Software description
  2. Software hazard analysis
  3. Software requirements specification (SRS)
  4. Architecture design chart

Your development process will be iterative, and therefore, you should be building and refining these four documents iteratively in parallel with your software code. At the beginning of your project, your design plan will need a brief software description. Your initial software description needs to include the indications for use, a list of the software’s functional elements, and the elements of your user specification (i.e., intended patient population, intended users, and user interface). If you are using lean startup methodology, the first version of your device description will be limited to a minimal viable product (MVP). The target performance of the MVP should be documented as an initial software requirements specification (SRS). This initial SRS might only consist of one requirement, but the SRS will expand quickly. Next, you need to perform an initial software hazard analysis to identify the possible hazards. It is important to remember that software hazards are typically hazardous situations and are not limited to direct physical harm. For each potential hazard you identify in your hazard analysis, you will need a software requirement to address each hazard, and each requirement needs to be added to your SRS. As your software becomes more complex by adding software features, your device description needs to be updated. As you add functions and requirements to your software application, your SRS will need updates too. Finally, your development team will need a tool to track data flow and calculations from one software function to the next. That tool is your architecture design chart, and you will want to organize your SRS to match the various software modules identified in your architecture diagram. This phase is iterative and non-linear, you will always have failures, and typically a team of developers will collaborate virtually. Maintaining a current version of the four software documents is critical to keeping your development team on track.

How do you perform a software hazard analysis?

One of the most important pre-requisite tasks for software developers is conducting a hazard analysis. You can develop an algorithm before you write any code, but if you start developing your application to execute an algorithm before you perform a software hazard analysis, you will be missing critical software requirements. Software hazard analysis is different from traditional device hazard analysis because software hazards are unique to software. A traditional device hazard analysis consists of three steps: 1) answering the 37 questions in Annex A of ISO/TR 24971:2020, 2) systematically identifying hazards by using Table C1 in Annex C of ISO 14971:2019, and 3) reviewing the risks associated with previous versions of the device and similar competitor devices. A software hazard analysis will have very few hazards identified from steps 1 and 2 above. Instead, the best resource for software hazard analysis is IEC/TR 80002-1:2009. You should still use the other two standards, especially if you are developing software in a medical device (SiMD) or firmware, but IEC/TR 80002-1 has a wealth of tables that can be used to populate your initial hazards analysis and to update your hazard analysis when you add new features.

How do you document your hazard analysis?

Another key difference between a traditional hazard analysis and a software hazard analysis is how you document the hazards. Most devices use a design FMEA (dFMEA) to document hazards. The dFMEA is a bottom-up method for documenting your risk analysis by starting with device failure modes. Another tool for documenting hazards is a fault tree diagram.

A fault tree is a top-down method for documenting your risk analysis, where you identify all of the potential causes that contribute to a specific failure mode. Fault tree diagrams lend themselves to complaint investigations because complaint investigations begin with the identification of the failure (i.e., complaint) at the top of the diagram. For software, the FDA will not allow you to use the probability of occurrence to estimate risks. Instead, software risk estimation should be limited to the severity of the potential harm. Therefore, a fault tree diagram is generally a better tool for documenting software risk analysis and organizing your list of hazards. You might even consider creating a separate fault tree diagram for each module of your software identified in the architecture diagram. This approach will also help you identify the potential impact of any software hazard by looking at the failure at the top of the fault tree. The higher the potential severity of the software failure, the more resources the software team needs to apply to developing software risk controls and verifying risk control effectiveness for the associated fault tree.

Posted in: 510(k), FDA, Software Verification and Validation

Leave a Comment (0) →

UDI Procedure and UDI Requirements

Learn how to create a UDI procedure for compliance with the FDA and EU regulatory requirements for UDI compliance.

Your cart is empty

Screen Capture of SYS 039 A D5 1024x563 UDI Procedure and UDI Requirements

A Unique Device Identifier or UDI is required for all in vitro diagnostics (IVD) and devices in the USA and Europe as a tool for identifying the manufacturer, the device or IVD itself, and production-related details such as the date of manufacture and the lot number. To comply with these UDI requirements, you will need a UDI procedure compliant with the US regulations (i.e., 21 CFR 830 and parts of 21 CFR 801). To comply with European regulations, you will need a UDI procedure compliant with Article 24 and Annex VI of the IVDR and Article 27 and Annex VI of the MDR. The video below provides an overview of Medical Device Academy’s UDI procedure.

What’s included in our UDI Procedure?

The UDI procedure complies with ISO 13485:2016 as well as the European and US regulations. The procedure includes the following list of documents:

  • SYS-039 A D5 UDI Requirements Procedure
  • FRM-016 A D1 FDA UDI Checklist
  • FRM-017 A D2 EU UDI Checklist

We are including a training webinar explaining the FDA’s UDI System and the native presentation slide deck, and we will provide an exam (i.e., a 10-question quiz) to verify training effectiveness. If you submit the completed exam to us by email in the native MS Word format, we will correct the exam and email you a training certificate with your corrected exam. The FDA website also provides information about the UDI system. We also provide email notifications of free updates to the procedure and forms when we update the procedure to comply with new and revised regulations.

UDI Requirements Procedure UDI Procedure and UDI Requirements
SYS-039 – UDI Requirements Procedure, Webinar and Exam Bundle

SYS-039, UDI Requirements Procedure Bundle; This training includes our procedure for UDI Requirements and the FDA template for the GUDID data elements. You will also receive a link to download our slide deck and webinar recording on UDI labeling. We also provide a 10 question quiz on the FDA’s UDI requirements and a training certificate when you complete the quiz and submit it to Medical Device Academy for grading.

Price: $299.00

What is a UDI?

UDI stands for ‘Unique Device Identifier.’ This is a two-part identification code that is used as part of the FDA’s Unique Device Identifier System. The FDA issued its final rule on Unique Device Identifier Systems on September 24, 2013, with an effective date of December 23, 2013. The full 44-page document can be viewed on the Federal Register Website.

The idea or concept of having an identifier unique to each medical device is not a flashy new concept and has been in use in other industries for many years now. A UDI could be comparable to a VIN and license plates for vehicles or even social security numbers and driver’s license numbers in people. The idea is that there is a trackable piece of information that identifies individual types of medical devices.

The Two Parts of a UDI

A UDI includes two parts. One is the ‘Device Identifier’ or DI, and the other is the ‘Production Identifier’ or PI. The DI portion is the ‘Device Identifier.’ This portion of the UDI is mandatory and serves to identify the labeler and the specific model of the labeled device. Once the DI has been assigned, it is permanent and cannot be changed. Every variable of the device will require its own DI. For example, if multiple sizing options were produced for a device, then each size available would require a DI. Other variances, such as color and cosmetic or ergonomic design differences, also require separate DI numbers.

The ‘Production Identifier’ or PI and unlike the device identifier the PI identifies one of several pieces of information. I feel the best way to explain what information the PI provides is to directly quote the FDA itself.

“a production identifier (PI), a conditional, variable portion of a UDI that identifies one or more of the following when included on the label of a device:

  • the lot or batch number within which a device was manufactured;
  • the serial number of a specific device;
  • the expiration date of a specific device;
  • the date a specific device was manufactured;
  • the distinct identification code required by §1271.290(c) for a human cell, tissue, or cellular and tissue-based product (HCT/P) regulated as a device.” (FDA, UDI Basics 2015).

If a company were to produce multiple batches or lots of a device, the DI would remain the same, but the PI would be different for each batch produced.

UDI Formats

Your UDI must be provided in two separate formats. One is a plain text version that is simply an alphanumeric code that correlates with the information that it is trying to convey. This is a DI/PI code that must be labeled on the packaging of your medical device or, in some cases, on the device itself.

A second format is a form that is AIDC compatible. AIDC stands for ‘Automatic Identification and Data Capture’. AIDC collects your information without having to manually enter all of your data. Generally, this is some type of barcode or QR code.

You can see examples of AIDC technology in our daily lives. Some of the most common examples are barcodes, as mentioned above, and magnetic strips and chips as we see in our credit and debit cards. RFID, Optical Scanners, and other various biometrics are also included as some of the less common AIDC methods.

For more information on AIDC technology in general, you can follow the 3rd party website.

udi label example 1 UDI Procedure and UDI Requirements

(Picture referenced from FDA website)

Where are UDI’s located?

Your UDI should be located on your device label. This is a general rule, but the FDA has multiple exemptions and alternatives based on the device use and classification. The UDI’s are required to be directly marked on the devices themselves should they be intended to be used more than once and be reprocessed before each use.

If you are writing a UDI procedure for your company, double-check that your device does not fall under any of the FDA’s exceptions.

An example of one of the exceptions that may apply to your device is, “If your device is Class I, you may use a Universal Product Code (UPC) to serve as the UDI on the device label and package. In addition, the UDI on your class I devices is not required to include a PI.” (FDA, Small Entity Compliance Guide, 2014).

Packaging Levels for UDI

Each ‘package level’ also requires a new DI. For example, if your medical device were an insulin syringe that you sold in packages of 10 and bulk in packages of 100, each would need an individual ‘Device Identifier’. This does not mean that each package of 10 or 100 needs its own DI. These are not a lot or batch numbers. These numbers are for the user’s information, so shipping materials such as pallets and shrink wrap do not require DI/PI labeling. However, different models or any substantial updates to the medical device will need its DI.

As long as your syringe is only sold as an individual syringe, the UDI and labeling are compliant. As soon as an additional packaging level is introduced, an additional UDI is required. Using the same syringe example, if the syringes are also sold in packages that contain five of your already labeled medical devices, that package needs its UDI number. Another UDI would be required if the syringes were sold in packages of ten, twenty-five, or fifty. Every level of packaging that the device is sold in requires a UDI.

IMDRF Levels of UDI Packaging UDI Procedure and UDI Requirements

What is not considered an additional packaging level? Measures to protect your products during shipping are not considered additional packaging levels. This includes palletizing and wrapping your products to protect them from damage during shipping. Pallets, shipping containers, and trailers do not require a UDI. 

Updated Products and UDI’s

UDI’s are specific to individual models of products and devices. As each packaging level or product variance, such as size offered, requires a UDI, so does each device change and upgrade. Say you launched your device 2 years ago and, based on consumer feedback, decided to make some changes to your device. The new version of your device is now no longer the same as the one that had the previous UDI issued to it.

You would now need a UDI for the essentially ‘new product’. You will also need to address the same compliance requirements for packaging levels and variances as you did with the original product. As you update your product, be aware that you may also need to update your UDI.

UDI date format requirements

The date format on device labels should be in the ‘International Standard’, which consists of Year-Month-Day as opposed to what would normally be seen in the United States, which is Month-Day-Year. For example, the date for April 18, 2018, would need to be written 2018-04-18.

This format would need to be used on your labeling for things such as the manufacture and expiration date of your product or device. 

For UDI labels, the compliance date for implementing the International Date Standard will be the same as the compliance dates for UDI/AIDC.

Compliance Dates for Class I and Unclassified Devices.

Below is the FDA’s UDI Compliance Dates Table.

To extend the compliance dates for lower-risk medical devices, the FDA plans to issue a guidance document to provide an enforcement discretion policy for labeling, GUDID data submission, standard date formatting, and direct mark requirements for class I and unclassified devices, as indicated in Figure 1 below. This enforcement discretion policy would not apply to class I or unclassified implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining devices1 because labelers of these devices must already comply with UDI requirements.

Type of Device Label (21 CFR 801.20), GUDID Submission (21 CFR Part 830, subpart E), and Standard Date Format (21 CFR 801.18) Requirements Direct Mark (21 CFR 801.45) Requirements
Class 1 devices2 September 24, 2020 September 24, 2022
Unclassified devices September 24, 2020 September 24, 2022

Figure 1

1 For implantable, life-supporting or life-sustaining devices of all classes, the compliance date for all UDI requirements and the standard date format requirement (21 CFR 801.18) was September 24, 2015.
2 Class I CGMP-exempt devices are excepted from UDI requirements. 21 CFR 801.30(a)(2)

For more information, see “Letter to Device Labelers on UDI Compliance Dates for Class I and Unclassified Devices – June 2, 2017”.

Compliance Dates Established by FDA in Conjunction with UDI Final Rule

Compliance Date Requirement
1 year after publication of the final rule (September 24, 2014) The labels and packages of class III medical devices and devices licensed under the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) must bear a UDI. § 801.20.
Dates on the labels of these devices must be formatted as required by § 801.18. Data for these devices must be submitted to the GUDID database. § 830.300.
A 1-year extension of this compliance date may be requested under § 801.55; such a request must be submitted no later than June 23, 2014.
Class III stand-alone software must provide its UDI as required by § 801.50(b).
2 years after publication of the final rule (September 24, 2015) The labels and packages of implantable, life-supporting, and life-sustaining devices must bear a UDI.  § 801.20.
Dates on the labels of these devices must be formatted as required by § 801.18.
A device that is a life-supporting or life-sustaining device that is required to be labeled with a UDI must a bear UDI as a permanent marking on the device itself if the device is intended to be used more than once and intended to be reprocessed before each use.  § 801.45.
Stand-alone software that is a life-supporting or life-sustaining device must provide its UDI as required by § 801.50(b).
Data for implantable, life-supporting, and life-sustaining devices that are required to be labeled with a UDI must be submitted to the GUDID database. § 830.300.
3 years after publication of the final rule (September 24, 2016) Class III devices required to be labeled with a UDI must bear a UDI as a permanent marking on the device itself if the device is a device intended to be used more than once and intended to be reprocessed before each use. § 801.45.
The labels and packages of class II medical devices must bear a UDI.  § 801.20.
Dates on the labels of these devices must be formatted as required by § 801.18.
Class II stand-alone software must provide its UDI as required by § 801.50(b).
Data for class II devices that are required to be labeled with a UDI must be submitted to the GUDID database.  § 830.300.
5 years after publication of the final rule (September 24, 2018) A class II device that is required to be labeled with a UDI must bear a UDI as a permanent marking on the device itself if the device is a device intended to be used more than once and intended to be reprocessed before each use. § 801.45.
The labels and packages of class I medical devices and devices that have not been classified into class I, class II, or class III must bear a UDI. § 801.20.
Dates on the labels of all devices, including devices that have been excepted from UDI labeling requirements, must be formatted as required by § 801.18.
Data for class I devices and devices that have not been classified into class I, class II, or class III that are required to be labeled with a UDI must be submitted to the GUDID database.  § 830.300.
Class I stand-alone software must provide its UDI as required by § 801.50(b).
7 years after publication of the final rule (September 24, 2020) Class I devices, and devices that have not been classified into class I, class II, or class III that are required to be labeled with a UDI, must a bear UDI as a permanent marking on the device itself if the device is a device intended to be used more than once and intended to be reprocessed before each use.  § 801.45.
Compliance dates for all other provisions of the final rule.  Except for the provisions listed above, FDA requires full compliance with the final rule as of the effective date that applies to the provision.

UDI Quality System Requirements

To comply with both Part 803.22 Medical Device Reporting and 820.198 Quality System Regulation, the documentation of UDI numbers included on device labeling is either required specifically or applicable to fulfill specific documentation and reporting requirements.

CFR 21 Chapter I Sub Chapter H Medical Devices Part 803.33 Medical Device Reporting

“(a) You must submit to us an annual report on Form FDA 3419. You must submit an annual report by January 1, of each year. You may obtain this form from the following sources:

(iv) Product model, catalog, serial, and lot number and unique device identifier (UDI) that appears on the device label or on the device package.”

(To view in full visit the regulation website)

For handling complaints as part of your quality system, inclusion of the UDI in your record of investigation is a specifically listed portion of device identifications and control numbers needed for reporting and record keeping.

Quality System Regulation Sub Part M Records 820.198

“(e) When an investigation is made under this section, a record of the investigation shall be maintained by the formally designated unit identified in paragraph (a) of this section. The record of investigation shall include:

(1) The name of the device;

(2) The date the complaint was received;

(3) Any unique device identifier (UDI) or universal product code (UPC), and any other device identification(s) and control number(s) used;”

(To view in full view the regulation website)

UDI Issuing Agencies

All UDIs are required to be issued under a system operated by an FDA-accredited “Issuing Agency”. At the time of writing this, the FDA currently only has three FDA-accredited IA’s.  They are GS1HIBCC, and the ICCBBA. The UDI rule provides a process through which an agency would seek FDA accreditation. specifies the information that the applicant must provide to FDA and the criteria FDA will apply in evaluating applications.

To seek accreditation by the FDA as a UDI issuing agency, your UDI procedure must define the process outlined in the 21 CFR 830 Subpart C. This specifies the information that must be provided to the FDA as well as the FDA evaluation criteria. The FDA also asks that agencies seeking an initial accreditation contact the FDA directly at

UDI Procedure for Labelers

Labelers are ultimately the ones that are responsible for complying with the FDA’s UDI labeling requirements. Are you a labeler? In most cases, but not always, the brand owner is typically the labeler. 

The FDA defines a labeler  as “(1) Any person who causes a label to be applied to a device with the intent that the device will be commercially distributed without any subsequent replacement or modification of the label; and

(2) Any person who causes the label of a device to be replaced or modified with the intent that the device will be commercially distributed without any subsequent replacement or modification of the label, except that the addition of the name of, and contact information for, a person who distributes the device, without making any other changes to the label, is not a modification for the purposes of determining whether a person is a labeler” (FDA, Webinar UDI 101)

Distributors add contact information only

A distributor may add their contact information to a label. As long as they are not altering the label in any other way. Alterations made to the label beyond this may constitute a change in who exactly is the labeler of the product.

Do UDI requirements apply to Foreign device manufacturers?

UDI labeling rules apply to all medical devices sold within the United States and Europe. Therefore, even if your company is located outside the US or Europe, you will need a UDI procedure, and you must comply with the UDI regulations to distribute products in these two markets. 

GUDID Requirements for your UDI Procedure

GUDID stands for Global Unique Device Identification Database. This database is a reference catalogue that is open for viewing by the public for every medical device with an ‘identifier’. This database can be accessed through AccessGUDID. Unlike submission, which requires an account, AccessGUDID may be accessed by anyone.

Under the UDI Rule, the FDA requires labelers who have medical devices that are labeled with a UDI to submit their device to the GUDID. If you are wondering if your device has such a labeler, we referenced above that the FDA considered the labeler to be “the person who causes a label to be applied to a device, or who causes the label to be modified, with the intent that the device will be introduced into interstate commerce without any subsequent replacement or modification of the label; in most instances, the labeler would be the device manufacturer, but the labeler may be a specification developer, a single-use device reprocessor, a convenience kit assembler, a repackager, or a relabeler.”

The GUDID is created with data about devices according to the compliance timeline table shared above and is published in conjunction with the UDI rule. The GUDID only contains the device identifier, which is the primary key to obtaining device information in the GUDID database. Production Identifiers are not submitted or stored in the GUDID.

References for your UDI Procedure

  1. FDA, (2015/05/06) UDI Basics, retrieved on 10/26/2017
  2. FDA, (2014/08/13) Unique Device Identification System: Small Entity Compliance Guide Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff, retrieved on 10/27/2017
  3. FDA, (2017/03/30) GUDID, retrieved on 11/01/2017

Additional Resources

  1. Federal Register Website
  2. AIDC Information from Tech Target
  3. Unique Device Identifier System: Frequently Asked Questions, Vol. 1
  4. UDI Guidance Unique Device Identification (UDI) of Medical Devices
  5. Global Unique Device Identification Database (GUDID) Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff
  6. Unique Device Identification System: Small Entity Compliance Guide
  7. UDI formats by FDA-Accredited Issuing Agency Version 1.3: January 27, 2017
  8. Title 21- Food and Drugs. Chapter 1- Food and Drug Administration Department of Health and Human Services. Subchapter H- Medical Devices. Part 830 Unique Device Identification. Subparts A-E.
  9. Unique Device Identification: Direct Marking of Devices (Issued Nov. 17th, 2017)

Posted in: ISO 13485:2016, ISO Certification, Unique Device Identification (UDI)

Leave a Comment (0) →
Page 1 of 29 12345...»