Medical Device Academy

Blog

Home → Blog

Effective Recruiting for the Auditor Position

Posted by on December 22, 2012

help wanted Effective Recruiting for the Auditor Position

Stop begging people to help you audit. Learn how to recruit auditors more effectively.

This blog shares thoughts related to effectively recruiting for the auditor position. One suggestion may surprise you.

Nearly 100% of the people I train as auditors were not hired specifically to be auditors. Instead, auditing is something extra that they were asked to do, in addition to their regular job. This situation creates three problems for the audit program manager:

  1. You have difficulty getting enough people to perform the audits.
  2. Most auditors will come from your department, so who is going to audit you?
  3. Auditors have little or no motivation to develop their auditing skills.

Stop begging for “volunteers” from other departments and start recruiting.

When I am recruiting someone to audit, I always get asked two questions:

  1. Who/What will I be auditing?
  2. What will I have to do?

You need to motivate people to become auditors because it requires extra work. The answer to #2 should be specific. I recommend creating a “sell sheet” that explains the process of performing an audit. I also like to develop educational sell sheets. Therefore, I recommend adopting the flow chart in ISO 19011:2011 (Figure 2 on page 15). I would add time estimates for each step of the process (6.2 – 6.7). This will serve as a training tool for future auditors and will eliminate the fear of an unknown time commitment for your potential recruit.

In order to answer #1, I recommend you assign the recruit processes that are upstream and downstream. I have recommended this concept in previous postings, but essentially you are assigning the person to audits of internal suppliers and internal customers. By doing this, utilizing the process approach will be more natural to the auditor and they will have a vested interest in doing a thorough audit. This also creates a situation where the auditor is typically assigned to at least two process audits per year.

The next question is one that your potential recruit will never ask, but they are always thinking…

Why should I become an auditor?

The biggest reason why you want to be an auditor is that it will make you more valuable to the company.

Auditors are required to interview department managers and ask tough questions. This gives the auditor a better understanding of the organization as a whole, and it gives them insight into how other managers work. This insight is pure gold.

If you want to be effective and get promoted, you need to demonstrate value to your boss and top management. If you don’t understand what other departments need, how can you help them? No manager will promote a selfish, power-hungry hog. They promote team players that make others better. Auditing gives you the insight necessary to understand how you can do that.

Auditing other departments will also give you insider information as to where new job openings will be. Sometimes you can’t wait for your boss to get promoted. In that case, you might want to know more about other departments in your company.

Each corporate culture is different, but the audit program manager needs to “sell” the recruit on volunteering to be an auditor.

Where to find recruits

Due to the cross-functional nature of auditing, I have found that my own personal experience working in multiple departments was invaluable. I have a better understanding of how a department functions than other auditors because I have worked in that department at another company. Operations, engineering and research experience are extremely valuable for auditing, but I believe the experience that transfers best to auditing is any position where you are addressing customer complaints and returns—such as technical support or service.

If your company is large enough to hire full-time auditors, I recommend searching for potential auditors at your suppliers and their competitors. These people will bring unique knowledge that is critical to a successful supplier selection process, and these individuals will increase the diversity in your company—instead of duplicating knowledge and expertise.

Pin It

Tags:

Posted in: ISO Auditing

Leave a Comment (0) →

Auditing ISO 14971 – 4 Steps to Assess Compliance

Posted by on December 2, 2012

This article describes four key steps for auditing ISO 14971, and suggested auditing questions are included.

Let’s say that you went ahead and purchased ISO 14971:2012, read Annex ZA, and identified a couple of gaps in your procedure. After you revised your Risk Management procedure to be compliant with the revised Standard, then what are you supposed to do?

Most QA Managers struggle over whether they should purchase ISO 14971:2012. I wrote a couple of blog postings about this matter, but my point was not to debate this question but to ensure companies are aware that they need to be compliant with the MDD and the ISO 14971 Standard. The “changes” from 2009 to the 2012 version are simply the European Commission reminding manufacturers that there are seven aspects of the ISO 14791 Standard that do not meet the requirements of the MDD. Therefore, if your company has already verified that your risk management process is compliant with the MDD–then you have nothing to change. However, if your risk management process is only compliant with ISO 14971:2009, then you need to revise your processes and procedures to address these seven aspects. 

4 Steps in Auditing ISO 14971

Once you have made revisions to your risk management process, how do you perform auditing of ISO 14971?

Step 1: Planning your auditing ISO 14971

This will be an internal audit, and since you (the QA Manager) are the process owner for the risk management process, you personally cannot audit this process. You need to assign someone that has the technical skill to perform the audit, but this person cannot be the process owner (you) or a direct report to the process owner (the rest of the QA department). Fortunately, the Director of Engineering is also trained as an internal auditor at your company. She is trained on ISO 14971:2009, but she did not receive risk management training to the most current version. To address this gap, she must read the updated Standard to understand what’s new.

novcover preview 211x300 Auditing ISO 14971 4 Steps to Assess Compliance

Clause 3.2 of ISO 14971 requires that top management review the Risk Management Process for Effectiveness.

She has participated in risk management activities, but each product development engineer participates in risk management activities for their own design projects. Therefore, she has several projects she can sample risk management records from without auditing her own work. You have communicated that you need this audit finished sometime in December because you want any CAPAs resulting from the audit to be finalized before the next Management Review at the end of January. The timing of the Management Review is important because the risk management procedure requires that top management assess the effectiveness of the risk management process during Management Review meetings.

There are no previous audit findings to close from the last audit of the risk management process. Still, the Director of Engineering has seven specific items to emphasize from the 2012 revision of the Standard, and a revised procedure for risk management. Therefore, she will prepare for the audit by identifying some new interview questions to specifically address these changes–as well as some more general, open-ended questions.

Specific questions related to Annex ZA when auditing ISO 14971

1. How does the risk analysis evaluate the acceptability of risks in the lowest category? (This is a leading question, but it is specifically designed to determine if negligible risks are discarded).

2. Please provide a few examples of how risks in the lowest category were reduced. (In sections 1 and 2 of the Annex, I require all risks to be reduced as far as possible, and for all risks to be evaluated for acceptability. The wording of this question also allows auditors flexibility in their sampling).

3.  How did the design team determine when they had implemented sufficient risk controls to minimize risks? (Many companies use a color-coded matrix as a quasi-objective method for determining when risks are adequately reduced. This process is often referred to as the ALARP concept. Annex ZA specifically prohibits using economic considerations as part of this determination).

4. How did you conduct a risk-benefit analysis? (The Standard allows for performing a risk-benefit analysis when overall residual risks exceed the acceptability criteria as outlined in the risk management plan. However, the MDD requires an overall risk-benefit analysis in Section 1 of Annex I. Section 6 also requires that a risk-benefit analysis be performed for each individual risk).

5. How were risk control options selected? (Section 2 of the MDD implies that the manufacturer shall review All the control options and pick the most appropriate ones. Therefore, the auditor should specifically look for evidence that the team systematically reviewed all possible control options to reduce risks–rather than stopping as soon as the risks were reduced to an acceptable level).

6. What were your team’s priorities for the implementation of risk control options? (It’s possible that the previous question will be sufficient to gather evidence that risk controls were implemented with the required prioritization, as specified in the MDD. However, this question would be used as a follow-up question if it is not clear that the team prioritized the risk control options in accordance with Section 2 of Annex I).

7. How was the effect of labeling and warnings in the instructions for use incorporated into the estimation of residual risks? (Almost every company remembers to include residual risks in their IFU as a warning or caution statement. However, Section 2 of Annex I does not allow for including this information given to the users as a method of reducing risks. Therefore, in a Design FMEA, you would not list labeling and IFUs in your column for current risk controls when you determine the risk. This should be identified as an action to be taken–with no impact on the score for residual risk).

%name Auditing ISO 14971 4 Steps to Assess ComplianceThe above questions are not examples of using the process approach, but each question is phrased in an open-ended manner to maximize the objective evidence gathered during the interview process. If you are doing a process audit, it’s still acceptable to include questions that use the element approach.

Generic questions when auditing ISO 14971

1. When was the ISO 14971:2012 version of the Standard added to the controlled list of external Standards?

2. Please provide examples of where you have updated the Essential Requirements Checklist (a Technical File document) to reference the newest revision of ISO 14971:2012, and please show at least one example of how the risk management report was updated to reflect this revision.

3. How did you verify training effectiveness for the design team specific to the updated risk management procedure before conducting a risk analysis?

%name Auditing ISO 14971 4 Steps to Assess ComplianceThese generic questions do not require reading the ISO 14971:2012 Standard. Instead, each question forces the auditee to demonstrate their knowledge of the revised Standard by answering open-ended interview questions. Each of these questions is also designed to test linkages with other support processes. This is an example of how to use the process approach.

Step 2: Auditing ISO 14971

The next step is to conduct your audit of ISO 14971. During the auditing of ISO 14971, the Director of Engineering will gather objective evidence of both conformity and nonconformity for the risk management process. The generic interview questions that were developed allow her to evaluate the effectiveness of linkages between the risk management process and other processes, such as:

1) Document control

2) Creating technical documentation for regulatory submissions

3) The training process

Specific questions verify that each of the seven elements identified in Annex ZA of ISO 14971:2012 is adequately addressed in the revised procedure. When the audit is completed, the auditor will have a closing meeting with the process owner (you) and the auditee(s), so that everyone is clear about what the findings were, and if there were any nonconformities. This is the time to clarify what needs to be done to prevent each nonconformity from recurring.

Step 3: Writing the Report & Taking Corrective Action(s)

This is no different from any other audit. Still, it is critical to have the report completed soon enough so that CAPAs can be initiated (not necessarily completed) before the Management Review.

Step 4: Verifying Effectiveness of Corrective Action(s)

Many people struggle with verifying the effectiveness of corrective actions–regardless of the process. My advice is to identify a process metric to measure effectiveness. Then the effectiveness check is objective. For example, monitoring the frequency of updates to the list of external standards can help verify that the process for monitoring when Standards are updated is effective. Likewise, the frequency of updates to the Essential Requirements Checklist and the risk management records referenced in the Essential Requirements Checklist indicates if the risk management process is being maintained. Finally, monitoring the lag between the time procedures are updated and when the associated training records are updated quickly identifies if there is a systemic problem with training or if a training gap is just an example of a single lapse.

Pin It

Tags: , ,

Posted in: ISO 14971:2019 (Risk Management)

Leave a Comment (6) →

How to Finish your Audit Schedule by December 31st

Posted by on November 28, 2012

This blog provides viable options to consider related to successfully completing your audit schedule by year’s end.

Let’s say that there are 34 days until the end of 2012. You have four supplier audits and three internal audits to complete. Of course, all but two of these ISO 13485 audits are overdue. What should you do?

Options that might be readily available to you include:

  1. Get some help
  2. Perform remote audits
  3. Reschedule some of the audits for next year

There are some great cartoons and jokes about doing more with less, but if you intend to complete seven audits before the end of the year, you might need some help. There really isn’t any time left to train someone, so that they are capable of conducting an effective audit by themselves. I expect to prepare a new auditor to take at least six months before I believe they are ready to work solo. Even if you are less demanding than I am, you still would need time for classroom training and shadowing a couple of audits. Therefore, the best I believe you could hope for is one or two solo audits of the seven you need to complete.

Realistically, your only source of help would be auditors that are already trained and consultants. The last month of the year is historically hectic for everyone–especially quality assurance auditors. Therefore, consultants will not be cheap, and you should commit to any qualified consultants that are available without too much delay (then again, maybe they are available because they are not very good). If you have any in-house auditors that are already trained, do everything you can to get some of their time in the next few weeks.

Remote Audits

Option two is to perform remote audits. This is a viable option for you to justify for a supplier with an impressive quality track record, or suppliers in other countries. However, a remote audit is not the same as asking a supplier to complete a survey. ISO 19011:2011 provides some guidance specific to remote auditing in table B.1 of Annex B.

For a remote audit, you should still sample just as many records—if not more. You should conduct interviews by phone, Skype, or some similar technology. You should analyze any available data to help identify which processes appear to be effective and which processes need to improve. If you are performing a remote audit for the first time, I recommend focusing on the same processes that you would normally audit in a conference room, rather than processes that you would typically audit where they occur—such as production controls. Regardless of which process you check, you should always request data.

Option three is to reschedule some audits for January 2013. I have suggested this so many times to clients, but very few follow this advice. If your company is late in conducting some audits, the important thing to do is to document this, reschedule the audits, and take corrective action(s) to prevent it from recurrence. If you wait until January, you will have additional time to train an auditor, as well. Finally, consultants historically have more time available in January than December.

In parallel with your efforts to catch-up on your schedule, I also recommend the following:

Create a quality objective that measures the “on-time delivery” of audits and audit reports. This is an effective metric for managing an audit program.

Investigate the reasons for audits being overdue. If the occurrence was preventable, then I recommend initiating a CAPA. This will have two effects. First, your third-party auditors will see that you have identified the problem yourself and taken appropriate corrective action(s). If you also discuss this during a Management Review, this information can be used effectively to change the grading of an audit finding to a “minor,” or to potentially eliminate the finding altogether. Second, it will ensure that this doesn’t occur again.

Pin It

Tags:

Posted in: ISO Auditing

Leave a Comment (0) →

Auditor shadowing as an effective auditor training technique

Posted by on November 25, 2012

This article reviews auditor shadowing as an effective auditor training technique, but we also identify five common auditor shadowing mistakes.

auditor with clip board 203x300 Auditor shadowing as an effective auditor training technique

If you are shadowing, you are taking notes, so you can discuss your observations with the person you are shadowing later.

How do you evaluate auditor competency?

Somewhere in your procedure for “Quality Audits,” I’ll bet there is a section on auditor competency. Most companies require that the auditor has completed either a course for an internal auditor or a lead auditor course. If the course had an exam, then you might even have evidence for training effectiveness. Demonstrating competency is much harder. One way is to review internal audit reports, but writing reports are just part of what an auditor does. How can you evaluate an auditor’s ability to interview people, take notes, follow audit trails, and manage their time? The most common solution is to require that the auditor “shadow” a more experienced auditor several times, and then the trainee will be “shadowed” by the trainer. 

Auditor shadowing in 1st party audits

ISO 19011:2011 defines first-party audits as internal audits. When first-party auditors are being shadowed by a trainer or vice versa, there are many opportunities for training. The key to the successful training of auditors is to recognize teachable moments.

When the trainer is auditing, the trainer should look for opportunities to ask the trainee, “What should I do now?” or “What information do I need to record?” In these situations, the trainer is asking the trainee what they should do BEFORE they do it. If the trainee is unsure, the trainer should explain what, why, and how at that moment with real examples.

When the trainer is shadowing, the trainer should watch and wait for a missed opportunity to gather important information. In these situations, the trainer must resist guiding the trainee until after the trainee appears to be done. When it happens, sometimes the best tool is simply asking, “Are you sure you got all the information you came for?”

Here are five (5) mistakes that I had observed trainers make when they were shadowing:

1. Splitting up, instead of staying together, is one of the more common mistakes I have observed. This happens when people are more interested in completing an audit, rather than taking every advantage of training opportunities. The trainee may be capable of auditing on their own, but this is unfair to the trainee because they need feedback on their auditing technique. This is also unfair to the auditee because it is challenging to support multiple auditors simultaneously. When it is unplanned, there may not be trainers available for both auditors. If an audit is running behind schedule, this is the perfect time to teach a trainee how to recover sometime in their schedule. Time management is, after all, one of the hardest skills for auditors to master.

2. Staying in the conference room, instead of going to where the work is done, is a common criticism of auditors. If the information you need to audit can be found in a conference room, then you could have completed the audit remotely. This type of audit teaches new auditors very little, other than how to take notes. These are necessary skills that auditors should master in a classroom before shadowing.

3. Choosing an administrative process is a mistake because administrative processes limit the number of aspects of the process approach that can be practiced by an auditor-in-training. Administrative processes rarely have equipment that requires validation or calibration, and both the process inputs and outputs consist only of paperwork, forms, or computer records. With raw materials and finished goods to process, the job of the auditor is more challenging, because there is more to be aware of.

4. Not providing honest feedback is a huge mistake. Auditors need to be thick-skinned, or they don’t belong in a role where they are going to criticize others. Before you begin telling other people how to improve, you first need to self-reflect and identify your own strengths and weaknesses. Understanding your perspective, strengths, weaknesses, and prejudices is critical to being an effective assessor. As a trainer, it is your job to help new auditors to self-reflect and accurately rate their performance against objective standards.

5. “Silent Shadowing” has no value at all. By this, I mean shadowing another auditor without asking questions. If you are a trainee, you should be mentally pretending you are doing the audit. Whenever the trainer does something different from the way you would do things, you should make a note so you can ask, “Why did you do that?” If you are the trainer, you should also be mentally pretending you are doing the audit. It is not enough to be present. Your job is to identify opportunities for the trainee to improve. The better the trainee, the more challenging it becomes to identify areas for improvement.  This is why training other auditors have helped me improve my auditing skills.

Auditor shadowing in second-party audits

supply chain weakest link Auditor shadowing as an effective auditor training technique

If you are developing a new supplier quality engineer that is responsible for performing supplier audits, it is recommended to observe the auditor during some actual supplier audits. Supplier audits are defined as second-party audits in the ISO 19011 Standard. The purpose of these audits is not to verify conformity to all the aspects of ISO 13485. Instead, the primary purpose of these audits is to verify that the supplier has adequate controls in place to consistently manufacture conforming products for your company. Therefore, processes such as Management Review (Clause 5.6) and Internal Auditing (Clause 8.2.2) are not typically sampled during a second-party audit.

The two most valuable processes for a second-party auditor to sample are 1) incoming inspection, and 2) production controls. Using the process approach to auditing, the second-party auditor will have an opportunity to verify that the supplier has adequate controls for documents and records for both of these processes. Training records for personnel performing these activities can be sampled. The adequacy of raw material storage can be evaluated by following the flow of accepted raw materials, leaving the incoming inspection area. Calibration records can be sampled by gathering equipment numbers from calibrated equipment in use by both processes. Even process validation procedures can be assessed by comparing the actual process parameters being used in manufacturing with the documented process parameters in the most recent validation or re-validation reports.

My recommendation is to have the trainee shadow the trainer during the process audit of the incoming inspection process, and for the trainer to shadow the trainee during the process audit of production processes. In between the two process audits, the trainee should be asking questions to help them fully understand the process approach to auditing. Supplier auditors should also be coached on techniques for overcoming resistance to observing processes that may involve trade secrets, or where competitor products may also be present. During the audit of production processes, the trainer may periodically prompt the trainee to gather the information that will be needed for following audit trails to calibration records, document control, or for comparison with the validated process parameters. The “teachable moment” is immediately after the trainee missed an opportunity, but while the trainee is still close enough to go back and capture the missing details.

Auditor shadowing in third-party audits

qsit inspection Auditor shadowing as an effective auditor training technique

Use your FDA inspections and ISO certification audits as an opportunity to shadow experienced auditors and to learn what they are looking for.

If you are going to shadow a third-party auditor, I recommend two specific people to “shadow” the auditor. First, the process owner should be the guide for whichever process is being audited. This is the person that will be responsible for addressing any nonconformities found in the area, and they should be present during interviews–although they should be coached on when to comment and when to remain quiet and simply observe.  Second, the person that performed an internal audit of the process being audited should be present if at all possible. This person will benefit from seeing how a professional third-party auditor performs a process audit because they will know which things to look for in the future so that auditees in that area are prepared for the next external audit.

For other sources of information related to auditor shadowing, please check out the following links:

1. Internal Auditor Training – Shadowing external auditor? – from Elsmar Cove

2. Developing Supplier Quality Auditor Training Programs – by Seth Mailhot at Nixon Peabody

Pin It

Tags:

Posted in: ISO Auditing

Leave a Comment (0) →

Instructor Effectiveness and the Power of a SNICKERS

Posted by on November 13, 2012

The author discusses his personal experience attending a training class, instructor effectiveness, and reasons why he learned so much there.

I guess there are still some instructors out there that need to be reminded that we can all read the regulations on our own. We don’t need to pay $1,000+ per day to have someone read stuff for us. If that’s what you want, my 10-year old son is a fantastic reader. He’ll record anything you want, in any media format, for a much smaller dollar figure. If you want to learn something that is worth at least as much as your investment of time and money, then you need to find an instructor that can teach effectively.

Four Prerequisites for a Great Instructor:

1. The instructor must be an expert

2. The instructor must inspire participation

3. The instructor must provide practical examples for each student

4. The instructor must get everyone’s attention–and keep it

The most important determining factor of training effectiveness, however, occurs after the course is over When you are teaching quality assurance and regulatory affairs, you must develop your ability to inspire and engage students to Olympic medalist proportions. “Blah, blah, blah…” and “Death by PowerPoint” will get you fired. Don’t read your slides, don’t turn your back on the audience (or they’ll attack) and PLEASE don’t ever ask someone to read the definition of nonconformity out loud to the rest of the group. When I teach a class, you demand my best. I’m six-foot, six inches tall, and I have a loud booming voice. My mother has red hair, and she was an opera singer. I’ve got the voice to fill any auditorium and stage presence to match. But if you even start to nod off in class, I may just have to throw a Snickers bar at you.

snickers Instructor Effectiveness and the Power of a SNICKERS

This is an essential tool for any instructor. It functions as a tool to prod sleeping students awake, is small enough to cause minimal injury when thrown, serves as an emergency food supply, and is gluten-free.

If legal counsel recommends against using projectiles to encourage class participation, you might also consider one of my all-time genius ideas. I was scheduled for a two-day course in Ottawa, but the day before, I needed to perform an audit in Pennsylvania. Therefore, my flight was the last flight into Ottawa–arriving at approximately 1 a.m. My flight was delayed for more than an hour, and the person in front of me was trying to smuggle an extra carton of smokes into the country. Just before 4 a.m., my taxi arrived at the Albert at Bay Suite Hotel. The class started at 8 a.m. I made it to class on time, and excessive consumption of several pots of black coffee helped get me to lunch. Then my legs started getting a little shaky. Fortunately, there was a convenience store next door that sold my favorite chocolate–the Dark Aero bar! After four of these monstrous doses of cacao, and another pot of coffee, I could have listened to the lecture on the Canadian Medical Device Regulations all night.

aero bar Instructor Effectiveness and the Power of a SNICKERS

Hershey’s copied them, but the result was a mere shadow of Nestle’s greatness. Canadians know how to make junk food, tell a joke, and play hockey!

Lessons Learned

Despite the physical handicap of sleep deprivation, I still learned a ton from my course in Canada. Here’s why:

1. The instructors were experts. Both instructors were regulatory experts and Canadian. Both instructors taught this course twice a year for multiple years, and one of the instructors actually worked for Health Canada.

2. The instructors were blessed with the perfect audience that was hyper-motivated to pass the course. Everyone in the class worked for a Notified Body that had sponsored them to take the course. In order to stay employed and get a raise, I needed to pass that course. If I failed the exam, I had to absorb the cost to travel back to Ottawa and retake the course in February (BRRRR!).

3. Everyone has different experiences, and therefore not every example makes sense to us. Therefore, instructors need to use practical examples that are actionable. In this course, the instructors brought more than a dozen medical devices to the class. We studied the labeling and intended use of each device. Even students from Japan, Europe, and Australia were familiar with some of the products. This was critical because we all needed to be able to identify incorrect Canadian labeling.

4. The greatest asset of all was the humor of the instructor from Health Canada. He was hilarious. He had everyone laughing at his jokes for the entire course. Most of the jokes were not funny enough for a stand-up routine, but this was a mandatory regulatory course on Canadian regulations. Who would even expect a chuckle? Despite the strengths of these instructors, there is only one reason why I know the Canadian Medical Device Regulations (CMDR), as well as I do. I use them every single week.

Some Examples of How I Used the CMDR:

First, I had to audit 162 days for BSI in 2011. Ninety percent of those 162 days were for companies that required a Canadian Medical Device License. Therefore, I started auditing companies to the Canadian regulations immediately after the course. Second, I was also consulting for companies at the same time I was auditing for BSI. Consulting clients hired me to prepare and submit the Canadian Medical Device License Applications for them. I also had to revise and create new procedures specific to Canadian regulations. I spent another 60+ days in 2011 doing consulting. Finally, I was one of BSI’s instructors that taught the regulatory comparison course, which compared the regulations of the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia, and Japan.

Therefore, at least once a month, I had a classroom of 6-20 people asking me challenging questions about how to interpret and apply regulations from each of these countries to their products. I used every bit of knowledge I learned in that course in Ottawa, and I started using that knowledge immediately after the course. I had peers, superiors, clients, and students challenging my knowledge of these topics every day. This is what makes you a subject matter expert. If you need to learn something about Quality Assurance or Regulatory Affairs, a one-hour webinar, reading a blog, taking a five-day, or shadowing another more experienced person is not enough. In the end, all of the above will get you to the level of barely competent!  If you want to learn, you need a great instructor. Then you need to use everything you learned at every opportunity for several years. Some say, “If you can’t do, teach.” I say, “Bring a SNICKERS bar and throw it at them for faking it.”

Pin It

Tags: , ,

Posted in: ISO Auditing

Leave a Comment (0) →

Quality Management System Information Sources

Posted by on November 10, 2012

This blog reviews a number of quality management system information sources.

A blog follower from Jon Speer’s website, Creo Quality, recently sent me a message asking for information sources on  Quality Management System (QMS) subject matter.

The single best guidance document on the implementation of a QMS system in accordance with ISO 13485 is “13485 Plus” (type in the words in quotes to the CSA Group search engine).

There are also a bunch of pocket guides you can purchase for either ISO 9001 or ISO 13485 to help you quickly access information you are having trouble remembering. One of my lead auditor students recommended one pocket guide in particular and she was kind enough to give me her copy.

There are some webinars out there that provide an overview of QMS Standards. Some are free and some have a modest fee. I’m not sure of the value for these basic overview webinars, but if you need to train a group, it’s a great solution. I know BSI has several webinars that are recorded for this purpose.

AAMI has an excellent course on the Quality System Regulations (QSR) which combines 21 CFR 820 and ISO 13485.

There are a number of blogs I recommend on my website.

You can try to identify a local mentor–either in your own company, or at your local ASQ Section.

You can join the following LinkedIn subgroup: Medical Device: QA/RA. You will need to become a member of the parent group (Medical Device Group)–if you are not already one of the 140,000+ members connected with Joe Hage. George Marcel and I manage this subgroup for Joe.

You can visit the Elsmar Cove website and participate in the discussions you find there. I wrote a blog about Elsmar Cove a while back (wow almost 2 years ago now).

The best way to learn this stuff is to do all of the above.

Pin It

Tags:

Posted in: ISO Certification

Leave a Comment (2) →

EU Medical Device Proposed Regulations: The “Scrunity Process”

Posted by on October 12, 2012

This blog discusses the “scrutiny process” of the proposed EU medical device regulations, whereby authorities can take a 2nd look at audit findings…

For those of you that are not familiar with the “Scrutiny Process,” I am referring specifically to Article 44 of the proposed EU regulations for medical devices. This process is first alluded to at the end of section 3.5 in the “Explanatory Memorandum” (i.e., the 13 pages preceding the proposal for the regulation of medical devices).

The U.S. already has a pre-market approval process that we fondly refer to as the PMA process. In response to the PIP scandal, the European Parliament’s ENVI Committee (Committee on the Environment, Public Health, and Food Safety) proposed a pre-market approval process as part of a press release issued on April 25, 2012. In response to this political pressure, the Commission has proposed a “Scrutiny Process” that involves the preparation of a Notified Body “Summary Evaluation Report,” and verification that the conformity assessment was adequate by the Coordinating Competent Authority.

A similar process is outlined in MEDEV 2.11/1 rev. 2, a guidance document regarding animal tissues, and the Commission Regulation (EU) No 722/2012 of August 8, 2012. The proposed scrutiny process allows competent authorities to take a “second look” and review the findings of the Notified Body that would be issuing a CE Certificate for these high-risk devices. The review process is supposed to be concluded within 60 days, but the review time limit is suspended if the Competent Authorities request additional information or product samples within the first 30 days.

In section 3.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission states that this scrutiny process “should be the exception rather than the rule and should follow clear and transparent criteria.” The criteria for invoking the scrutiny process are defined in five points 5a) through 5e) of Article 44. The five points leave room for interpretation by Competent Authorities, and the medical device industry is concerned that the review process for Class IIb and Class III devices will be delayed by at least 60 days regularly. The process could easily be delayed by as much as six months when there are requests for additional information and samples.

The “Legislative Financial Statement” (i.e., – the 19 pages immediately following the proposal for the regulation of medical devices) defines a monitoring process for the scrutiny process in the “Indicator of results and impact” (Section 1.4.4). The risk of delaying access to the market for innovative devices is also identified in the “Risk(s) identified” (Section 2.2.1). Therefore, the need for a control mechanism is recognized in “Control method(s) envisaged” (Section 2.2.2). This will be the responsibility of the Commission to draft a guidance document to define the control method(s). Until industry has an opportunity to review such a guidance document, executives will continue to voice their concerns and apply their own political pressure to the European Parliament.

Pin It

Tags: ,

Posted in: CE Marking

Leave a Comment (0) →

13 Tips for Learning New Regulations

Posted by on October 3, 2012

Everyone learns through different methods. This blog discusses three levels of the learning pyramid and provides 13 tips for learning new regulations.

Last week I mentioned the draft EU regulations that were released, and I am still reading them. I am sure some of you have already finished at least one of the two regulations, but I am a slow reader. Sure I have skimmed the regulations, but I really need to read every word of the regulations several times before I have absorbed the bulk of the content. While I was reading during my lunch today, I was wondering how other regulatory experts learn new material. After all, there is nobody to take a course from yet, and a one hour webinar is not enough.

Some people like to listen to books on tape during their morning ride, but I think the market might be a little small for medical device regulations. We could use technology to convert the PDF format into an eBook format that can be read electronically to us on our commute to work. Still, I learn Standards visually rather than verbally.

“Never Stop Learning”

Last year I published a blog titled “Never Stop Learning.”

In that post, I presented a model for learning that I find helpful for explaining my philosophy for training people. The first level in my Learning Pyramid is to “Read and Understand.” I call this the “newbie” stage. That is the level most of us are at right now for the draft EU regulations. The next level of the Learning Pyramid is “Show and Tell.” A course or seminar related to the draft regulations would involve training telling us about the draft regulations, and showing us some PowerPoint slides to help us visualize the changes. I think the technical term for this type of torture is “Death by a Million PowerPoint Bullets.” If your instructor is thorough in their efforts to torture you, then you will conclude this training with a quiz to demonstrate training “effectiveness.”

If you are lucky, you will start using some of that new-found knowledge immediately after the course. If you just had your 400th birthday, as I did last week, then you might have a little trouble remembering all the details you “learned” in that training course in a matter of weeks. Now, what can you do?

Look it up! Isn’t that what your teachers told you when you were growing up?

If you need to know what the proposed requirements are for Authorized Representative Agreements, you can use the search function in Adobe Reader to search for the word “agreement.” After just six clicks of the mouse, you will find where this is mentioned in Article 10 of the draft. As you read Article 10, you will rejoice! Instead of the 17-page voluminous guidance document identified as MEDDEV 2.5/10 (released in January of 2012), we now have 144 words with just four simple minimum requirements. This is streamlined.

Over the next year or two, I expect that most of the regulatory experts will gradually work their way up the Learning Pyramid to the top of the third level. This is the point where we can now claim competency.

So how do you become an expert? In order to achieve the mighty title of “Guru,” you must teach others. My blog, “Never Stop Learning,” explains how the action of teaching actually teaches the instructor as much as it teaches the student.

So what’s my point? 

Don’t Be Normal

  1. Skim the draft regulations now
  2. Take a course on the regulations in 2013
  3. Start revising procedures and technical documentation in 2014
  4. Start developing an in-house training course on the new regulations in 2015
  5. Finish training all the employees in 2016

Definitely Don’t Be Lazy

  1. Wait for the final approval of the regulations in 2014
  2. Take a webinar on the new regulations in 2015
  3. Get a nonconformity for noncompliance in 2016
  4. Hire a consultant to fix your procedures in 2017
  5. Start looking for a course on the regulations in 2018

13 Tips For Learning New Regulations

1. Read and re-read the draft regulations now

2. Read blogs and discussion threads related to the draft regulations for the next couple of months

3. Take a webinar on the draft regulations this November 28th (mark your calendar)

4. Draft a plan for revising procedures in 2013 and updating technical documentation in 2014

5. Get management approval for a training course in 2013 and resources to update procedures as per your plan

6. Take a course on the draft regulations in the first quarter of 2013; you should have quite a few questions now that you have a plan and resources

7. Make adjustments to your plan and execute it on schedule

8. Create a training program for the company just prior to final approval in late 2013

9. Make revisions to the procedures based upon feedback from trainees in your in-house course

10. Develop a detailed team plan for updating technical documentation

11. Retrain everyone and review the updated plan

12. Make updates to technical documentation in 2014 as a team

13. Be one of the first companies to get a CE certificate to the new regulations in 2015

 

 

 

Pin It

Tags: ,

Posted in: ISO Certification

Leave a Comment (0) →

FDA Advice for Regulatory Submissions

Posted by on September 21, 2012

This blog reviews the importance of planning and communication with the FDA related to firms’ regulatory submissions. For the past two days, I was fortunate enough to attend a training seminar hosted by the FDA in Washington, DC. This was a “free” seminar (i.e., – travel expenses only). The session was split into two rooms. One room focused on drug regulations, and the other focused on device regulations. As my strength is a device, I spent most of my time listening to the speakers on the drug-side. Throughout the training, there was one common theme that was repeated by the speakers: Come Early, Be Loud, and Stay Late.

“Come Early”

The speakers recommend that companies plan their submissions well in advance and talk to the appropriate FDA project manager about their plans before starting clinical studies.

“Be Loud”

The speakers recommend that companies communicate with as many people as they can at FDA to ensure they have identified all the critical issues to address in the study design.

“Stay Late”

The speakers recommend that companies think ahead so that if (or when) things don’t go as planned, the clinical study results can be salvaged. In simple and more practical terms, every speaker emphasized the importance and value of consulting with the FDA, instead of guessing what type of data will be needed for submission. One of the other participants brought this up at lunch on the first day. He mentioned an example where the FDA agreed with a company on specific data that would be required for acceptance of an NDA. The company did exactly what the FDA said, and then the FDA requested more data. He later described another case where the FDA specified data, and the company refused to comply—but the FDA granted approval. This other participant and I both agreed that most companies are afraid to ask the FDA for agreement on what data is required because the company may not like the FDA’s answer.

My personal belief is that the FDA is better at identifying what data will be required than most companies because they have a broader perspective than companies do. There will always be exceptions, but my recommendation is to ask FDA’s opinion whenever you have a question—just ensure you do your homework before you ask an inane question that is already in their guidance documents. I believe this advice also applies to every regulatory agency in the world.

Pin It

Tags:

Posted in: FDA

Leave a Comment (0) →

How to request FDA Device Classification information – 513(g) Alternative

Posted by on September 11, 2012

This blog provides a five-step process on how to request FDA device classification information. A screenshot of the FDA website for each step is included.

If your company is currently registering with the US FDA, you are probably reviewing the guidance document this month for the FY2013 user fees. On pages six and seven, there is a table of these fees, but you might have overlooked 513(g). Section 513(g) is a provision in the law that allows companies to request device classification information from the FDA.

For example, if your company was developing a new product, and you were having difficulty identifying the regulatory pathway, 513(g) is your friend. In my opinion, these fees are modest: $5,061 = Standard Fee, and $2,530 = Small Business Fee (updated for FY 2022). Most consultants will charge at least ten hours of consulting to identify the regulatory pathway for a company. I would charge quite a bit less because it takes me a lot less than ten hours. I still think the FDA’s pricing is a good deal because getting information directly from the source is always more valuable than an “expert.”

The US FDA has published a guidance document explaining the process for 513(g) requests. This guidance document was released on April 6, 2012 (updated in 2019). The guidance explains what information companies need to provide in order to submit a 513(g) request. The guidance also has a fantastic list of FDA resources on page five. These are the very same resources that the “experts” use—including yours truly.

Just as any good lawyer tries to avoid asking questions that they don’t already know the answer to, I recommend that you first try using these resources yourself. Once you think you know the answer, your request for classification information will be easier to organize.

Here’s how I would proceed to request FDA device classification information: 

Step 1 – Are there similar devices on the market?

Identify another device similar to yours. If you can’t do this, you need serious help. You need a similar device that is already sold on the market to use as a predicate device. If you cannot identify a predicate, then you can’t use the 510(k) process—or you don’t know your competition. Either way, there are challenges to overcome. For example, if you are trying to launch a new topical adhesive made from cyanoacrylate—”Dermabond” might be the first predicate device that comes to mind.

registration and listing How to request FDA Device Classification information 513(g) Alternative

Step 2 – Search the Registration Database for FDA Device Classification

Use the registration and listing database on the FDA website to find the company that manufacturers the device. The link for this is #4 on my helpful links page (updated). This link also will provide you with connections to the classification database—which you can use to find the classification for any device. However, the registration and listing database is less likely to lead you astray. When I type “Dermabond” into the field for the proprietary device name, I get a list of five different product listings.

5 listings for dermabond How to request FDA Device Classification information 513(g) Alternative

Step 3 – Select one of the competitor links to identify the FDA Device Classification

Clicking on any one of these five will take you to a listing page for the corresponding company. On that page, you will find the three-letter product code that identifies the device classification and the applicable regulations for that device.

device listing for dermabond1 How to request FDA Device Classification information 513(g) Alternative

Step 4 – Your found the FDA Device Classification

Clicking on the three-letter product code (i.e., – “MPN” in our Dermabond example) takes you to the Product Classification page. This is where you will find that Dermabond, and other tissue adhesives, are Class II devices that require a 510(k) submission. Also, the Product Classification page identifies an applicable guidance document to follow for design verification and validation testing. This is also called the “Special Controls Document.”

mpn product classification How to request FDA Device Classification information 513(g) Alternative

Step 5 – TheTPLC Report lists all the recent 510(k) submissions

Click on the “TPLC Product Code Report” link. This link will provide you with a report of all the 510(k) ‘s recently granted to your competitors, problems customers have experienced with their products, and recalls for the past five years. This is extremely valuable information as a design input—as well as competitive information for your marketing team.

tplc total product life cycle report for mpn How to request FDA Device Classification information 513(g) Alternative

TPLC Report for Product Code “MPN” – Topical Adhesive

Pin It

Tags: ,

Posted in: FDA

Leave a Comment (1) →
Page 26 of 29 «...10202425262728...»