ISO Certification Medical Device Academy

Archive for ISO Certification

Implementing Procedures for CAPA, NCMR & Receiving Inspection

Posted by Rob Packard on September 27, 2016

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

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

SYS-027, Purchasing
SYS-001, Document Control
SYS-002, Record & Data Control
SYS-004, Training & Competency
SYS-011, Supplier Quality Management
SYS-008, Product Development
SYS-010, Risk Management
SYS-006, Change Control

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

Implementing Receiving Inspection Procedures

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

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

Implementing Procedures for Identification and Traceability

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

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

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

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

Implementing CAPA Procedures

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

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

A well-designed CAPA form
Proper training on root cause analysis
Performing effectiveness checks

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

Monitoring Your Procedure Implementation Process

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

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

Implementing Procedures for ISO 13485:2016

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

Posted in: ISO 13485:2016

Leave a Comment (0) →

How to write a quality system plan template (free download)

Posted by Rob Packard on November 20, 2015

This article explains how to write a quality system plan template to revise and update your quality system for compliance with ISO 13485:2016. If you want to download our free template, there is a form to complete at the end of this article.

Templates are the key to writing a quality system plan

Plan, do check, and act (PDCA) is the mantra of the Deming disciples, but does anyone know what should be in your quality system plan template. Everyone focuses on the steps–the “What’s.” Unfortunately, people forget to include the other important pieces of an all-inclusive quality system plan. Why? When? Who? And How much?

The table in the template is an example of “What?” steps to perform, but it is specific to my procedures. You will need to revise the table to reference your procedures, and the changes you make will be specific to your quality system plan. The other sections of the template tell you what needs to be included in that section, but I did not provide examples for those sections.

Why should you create a quality system plan template?

The purpose section of the quality system plan answers the question of “Why?” You need to specify if the purpose of your quality system plan is compliance with new and revised regulatory requirements, preventing recurrence of quality issues, or maybe a faster development cycle. The purpose section of the plan also provides guidance with regard to the monitoring and measurement section of your quality system plan template.

When should you create a plan for quality system changes?

Most changes have deadlines. In the case of ISO 13485:2016, there will be a 3-year transition period. Still, most companies establish internal goals for early implementation by the end of the fiscal year or the end of a financial quarter. Some of the changes can be made in parallel, while other changes need to be sequential. Therefore, there may be specific milestones within your quality system plan that must be completed by specific dates. These dates define “When?” the steps in the quality system plan must be implemented.

Who should write your quality plan?

As my quality system plan template indicates, I recommend defining both individual process owners and teams of process owners where processes can be grouped together. For example, I typically group the following four processes together as part of “Good Documentation Practices (GDPs)”: 1) control of documents (SYS-001), 2) control of records (SYS-002), 3) training (SYS-004), and 4) change control (SYS-006). I cover all four processes in a webinar called “GDP 101.”

It is important to have one person that is accountable and has the authority to implement changes for each process, but only one person should be in control of each process. If you have four related procedures, then the team of four people will need to coordinate their efforts so that changes are implemented swiftly and accurately. For the overall quality system plan template, I recommend assigning a team leader for the team of four process owners described above. One of those people should be responsible for team leadership and writing the quality system plan template.

Monitoring implementation of your quality plan?

Monitoring the progress of your plan ensures the successful implementation of the plan. Sometimes things don’t work as planned, and corrections need to be made. Additional resources might be needed. The plan may have been too optimistic with regard to the implementation time required. I recommend assigning one person the task of retrieving team status reports from each of the teams and consolidating the team reports into an overall progress report.

Free download of ISO 13485:2016 quality system plan template

The sign-up form below will allow you to receive an email with the ISO 13485:2016 quality system plan template attached. This is a two-step process that will require you to confirm the sign-up.

If you have a suggestion for a different type of quality plan, please let us know.

Posted in: ISO Certification

How to implement a new ISO 13485 quality system plan in 2016

Posted by Rob Packard on November 16, 2015

This article is a case study that explains how to implement a new ISO 13485 quality system plan at an accelerated schedule of just four months. The quality system will also be compliant with 21 CFR 820.

Typically, I recommend implementing a new ISO 13485 quality system plan over a period of 6 months. The reason for this is that people can only read procedures and complete training at an individual pace. Since there are approximately 30 procedures required for a full quality system, an implementation pace of one procedure per week allows a company to complete 90% of the reading and training in six months.

In October, a new client asked me for a proposal to implement a new ISO 13485 quality system plan. The proposed quality system plan indicated that the project would start in October and finish in March. The client accepted my proposal, but they asked me to help them implement the quality system plan in four months, as indicated in the table above. We just started the implementation of the quality system plan last week, and I have discovered some secrets that dramatically simplify the process. This blog shares some of the lessons learned that help implement the quality system plan at this faster pace.

Outsourcing ISO 13485 quality system development

Not everyone has the skill and experience to write a quality system procedure. Still, if you have a good template, you understand quality systems–then you can write quality system procedures. Depending upon the length of the procedure, it may take four to eight hours of writing for each procedure. Therefore, an in-house quality manager needs to allocate one day per week if they plan to write all the procedures for their quality system in six months. For a four-month implementation of an ISO 13485 quality system plan, you need to allocate two days per week to writing.

Alternatively, you can outsource the writing of your quality system. However, someone must be responsible for “customizing” generic procedures to fit your company, or the procedures need to be written from scratch. A third and final option is to have a hybrid of in-house procedures and outsourced procedures. If your quality manager has limited time resources, then you can supplement the managers’ time with procedures that are purchased and customized to fit your template. If there are specific procedures that the quality manager needs help with, such as risk management, then you can also purchase just those procedures.

ISO 13485 quality system plan

One of the basic principles of quality management systems is “continuous improvement.” The continuous improvement cycle is also known as the “Deming Cycle.” There are four parts to the cycle:

Plan
Do
Check
Act

When you are developing an ISO 13485 quality system, the first step is to develop the quality system plan. I recommend the following guidelines for a quality system plan. First, plan to implement the quality system at a steady pace. Second, organize the implementation into small groups of related procedures.

In this case study, I have 29 procedures that we are implementing, and there are 11 recorded training webinars. During each of the four months, approximately the same number of procedures are implemented. Then I organized the small groups of procedures around the scheduled webinar training. For example, the month of November will have a total of 24 documents (i.e., eight procedures and 16 associated forms and lists) implemented, and there are four webinar trainings scheduled. Therefore, four procedures related to “Good Documentation Practices 101“ will be implemented as a group under document change notice (DCN) 15-001. Two procedures associated with “Are your Suppliers Qualified? Prove it!“ will be implemented as a group under DCN 15-002. The remaining two procedures, design controls, and risk management, will be implemented as a group under DCN 15-003 with two related webinars on design controls and ISO 14971.

Document Change Notice (DCN)

The next step in the Deming Cycle is to “Do.” For the implementation of an ISO 13485 quality system plan, “doing” involves the creation of procedures, forms, and lists, but “doing” also involves the review and approval of these documents. The form we use to review and approve procedures is called a document change notice or DCN.

It’s been almost 20 years since I completed my first DCN. For anyone unfamiliar with the review and approval of new and revised documents, most quality systems document the review and approval of procedures and forms on a separate form. The reason for this is that when you make one change, it often affects several other documents and forms. Therefore, it is more efficient to list all the documents and forms that are affected by the change on one form. This results in fewer signatures for reviewers and approvers. Several of the companies that I have helped to implement an ISO 13485 quality system plan for failure to review and approve the documents and forms in a timely manner. I think there are two reasons for this:

they haven’t been responsible for document control before, and
they don’t want to have to create and maintain quality system records any sooner than required.

The first reason can be addressed quickly with training. The second reason, however, is flawed. It is essential to implement the procedures as soon as possible to begin creating quality system records that can be audited by an ISO 13485 certification auditor or FDA inspectors. I have struggled with this hesitation in the past, but for this project, I am completing DCNs for the initial release of all the procedures and forms. This ensures that all the procedures and forms will be reviewed and approved shortly after the webinar training is completed. Also, this gives my client multiple examples of DCNs to follow as they make revisions to the procedures and forms over time.

Quality Objectives & Data analysis

The third step in the Deming Cycle is to “check.” I recommend using quantitative metrics to track progress toward your goal of completing the quality system implementation. For example, if you have 50 documents to review and approve, you can track the % complete by just multiplying each document that is approved by 2%. You can also track the implementation of documents separately by type. Every DCN you route for approval will take a certain number of days to complete. You might consider tracking the duration of DCN approval. As a benchmark, an efficient paper-based DCN process should average about four days from initiation to completion. I have seen average durations measured in months, but hopefully, your average duration of DCN approval will be measured in days. Another metric to consider is the % of required training that has been completed for the company, for each department and each employee. Regardless of which metrics you choose to evaluate your quality system implementation, you should pick some of these metrics as quality objectives (i.e., a requirement of ISO 13485, Clause 5.4.1). You should also analyze this data for positive and negative trends as required by ISO 13485, Clause 8.4.

Your first CAPAs

The fourth and final step in the Deming Cycle is to “act.” Acting involves taking corrective action(s) when your data analysis identifies processes that are not functioning as well as they should be. To achieve ISO 13485 certification, you will need some examples of corrective and preventive actions (CAPAs) that you have implemented. The steps you take in response to observed trends during data analysis are all potential CAPAs.

Download an ISO 13485 quality system plan

Later this week, I will be posting a follow-up blog that explains how to write an ISO 13485 quality system plan for establishing a new quality system. There will also be a link for downloading a free ISO 13485 quality system plan.

Posted in: ISO Certification

Good Documentation Practices (GDP 101) Webinar

Posted by Rob Packard on February 19, 2015

No White Out!

Medical Device Academy released a new webinar this week for training companies on good documentation practices.

Have you ever wondered where the FDA regulation is that says, “…shall not use white-out to correct quality system records.”

Don’t bother looking, because you won’t find it. You also won’t find any regulations against the use of red pens, highlighters, pencils, or markers. You can’t even find a guidance document that tells you not to put a single line through mistakes, initial and date it.

The applicable regulation is 21 CFR 820.180, but the regulation doesn’t specifically say these things. Instead, the regulation states: “Records shall be legible and shall be stored to minimize deterioration and to prevent loss.” The ISO 13485 Standard is not much different. It states that you must establish a procedure that will “Define the controls needed for the identification, storage, protection, retrieval, retention time and disposition of records.”

Over time medical device companies have developed some standard approaches to meet the requirements for Document Control, Control of Records, and Training. These are the three core processes that I call “good documentation practices.” If you need training or you need tools for training employees, click on the link below to purchase our new webinar on good documentation practices.

http://robertpackard.wpengine.com/good-documentation-practices-webinar/

The webpage also includes an exam for training people on good documentation practices. The exam serves as a useful check for the training, but we recommend that process owners monitor these processes–especially if the process is manual. For example, QC inspectors will complete inspection records and file the record as a quality system record. The QC supervisor, or process owner, should periodically review these records for completeness and accuracy. If the supervisor notices an error, the supervisor should notify the inspector and have them correct the mistake. The supervisor should also track how many times each error is made and specifically where errors are occurring. The collection of this data gives the supervisor trend data to help them identify which forms need to be updated to prevent mistakes and which employees require retraining. This data also provides evidence of competency for each employee concerning good documentation practices.

After you have completed the training, you might also be interested in downloading our procedures for Document Control, Control of Records and Training:

http://robertpackard.wpengine.com/standard-operating-procedures-medical-device-academy/

Posted in: ISO Certification

Leave a Comment (0) →

Management Review Procedure Case Study Example

Posted by Rob Packard on February 2, 2015

This article, “Management Review Procedure Case Study” describes an error-proof method for review and approval of procedures.

The first time I was ever formally trained on how to conduct a document review was during a lead auditor course. I thought the topic seemed out of place, but as I audited more companies, I realized that missing a regulatory requirement in a procedure was quite common. Regardless of who reviews a procedure, or how many times it is reviewed, something is always missed. Unfortunately, a desktop audit of procedures is not an effective corrective action or verification method. Auditing procedures is an ineffective method for reviewing procedures because audits are limited by sampling.

Instead of random sampling, a systematic review of 100% of regulatory requirements is needed to ensure that none of the regulatory requirements are accidentally omitted. Systematically reviewing the requirements for each country your company is selling in is tedious at best. You need a tool to make the reviewing process error-proof and straightforward. You also need each reviewer of the procedure to have a defined function to eliminate the duplication of work.

Procedure Reviewer Roles

Typically, there are 3-5 reviewers of procedures in most companies. Some companies make the mistake of having as many as 8-10 reviewers of procedures, but more is not better in this case. There are four primary roles for review and approval of procedures:

process owner
quality management
regulatory
independent

The process owner may be the author of a procedure, but I don’t recommend it. Editing someone else’s work is much more useful than editing your own work. Therefore, I recommend that department managers delegate the responsibility for writing a draft of a procedure to a subordinate that needs to perform the procedure. Then the department manager, who should also be the process owner, is responsible for reviewing and approving the initial draft.

The quality management person should be responsible for reviewing the procedure for accuracy and interactions with other processes. For example, the management review process has eight required inputs (i.e., ISO 13485, Clause 5.6.2a-h). Each of those inputs comes from another process and procedure. It is essential to ensure that if you are reviewing the complaint handling procedure, somewhere in that procedure, it should state that the monitoring and measuring of complaint trends should be input into the management review process.

The regulatory person is responsible for verifying that the procedure meets 100% of the regulatory requirements. This person should verify that the scope of the procedure identifies the relevant markets. If there are references to documents of external origin, the regulatory person should verify that these references are accurate. It is recommended to eliminate references to revisions of documents of external origin and internal procedure revisions because the inclusion of revisions will increase the frequency of minor revisions to procedures that add no value.

Finally, the independent reviewer is looking for two things:

Does the procedure make sense–to someone that performs the procedure (if that person was not the author); and to an external auditor, such as a certification body (internal auditors can fill this role)?
Are there typos, spelling, or grammar mistakes?

The independent reviewer does not need to be a manager. It needs to be someone that writes well. Copy editing is tedious, but apparent mistakes in spelling or grammar prompt auditors to review procedures more carefully. I recommend asking an internal auditor to be the independent reviewer.

Reviewing Regulatory Requirements

The two most common reasons for audit findings are:

the procedure is not being followed, and
a regulatory requirement is not being met.

The first problem should be addressed by having processing owners review and write procedures instead of asking quality assurance to provide a procedure. If you are purchasing a procedure, it’s important for the person that will be performing the procedure to carefully review the procedure to ensure it matches how they intend to perform that process. If it’s a manufacturing procedure, I like to conduct the training of personnel with a draft procedure and hand out red pens. That also dramatically reduces complaints from the people that do the work.

For regulatory requirements, your regulatory reviewer needs to create a checklist that includes 100% of the requirements for that procedure. The model I like to follow is the Essential Requirements or Essential Principles Checklist used for technical documentation (i.e., for CE Marking). There are 13 Essential Requirements, and most of the requirements have multiple subparts. The regulatory person that completes an Essential Requirements Checklist must indicate the following information next to the applicable requirement in the checklist table:

yes, the requirement applicable or justification if it’s not applicable
a reference to any applicable standards
a cross-reference to the record where evidence of meeting the requirement can be found (e.g., the risk management file)

Regulatory personnel can revise this approach slightly by doing the following for a review of procedures:

yes, the requirement applicable or justification if it’s not applicable
a reference to the applicable specific sub-clause in a Standard or a regulation
a cross-reference to the subsection of the procedure where evidence of meeting the requirement can be found (e.g., section 5.1 of the SYS-003)

Case Study of SYS-003, Management Review Procedure

In the Medical Device Academy Management Review Procedure, Section 8 is the “procedure section.” Sub-section 8.3 of the procedure lists all the required inputs to a Management Review meeting. Next to each input, I have included a cross-reference to the sub-clause in ISO 13485:2003 for the Management Review input. There is also a requirement in 21 CFR 820.20 for conducting Management Reviews at scheduled intervals. This requirement is met by sub-section 8.1 of the Management Review procedure.

Teaching Auditors to Review Regulatory Requirements

Now, when I teach my version of the Lead Auditor Course, I ask attendees to split into small groups and review one of their procedures. In the last company I did this, each of the four teams found a regulatory requirement missing in the procedure they were reviewing. All four procedures the teams selected were reviewed, approved, and currently in use.

Management Review Webinar & Procedure – Free Download

Tags: management review procedure, management review procedure case study, medical device management review, medical device management review case study

Posted in: ISO Certification

How to reconcile the conflict between ISO 13485 and ISO 9001

Posted by Rob Packard on December 9, 2014

This blog explains how to reconcile the conflict between ISO 13485 and ISO 9001, and discusses whether you should maintain dual certification.

The previous version of ISO 13485 was released in 2003. That standard was written following the same format and structure of the overall quality system standard at the time (i.e., ISO 9001:2000). In 2008, there was an update to the ISO 9001 standard, but the changes were minor, only clarified a few points, and the periodic review of ISO 13485 in 2008 determined there was not a need to update 13485 at that time. Unfortunately, the proposed structure of the ISO 9001 standard was radically different, and this forces companies with dual certification to reconcile the conflict between ISO 13485 and ISO 9001.

On December 1-5, 2014, the working group for the revision of ISO 13485 (i.e., TC 210 WG1), met at AAMI’s Standards week to review the comments and prepare a first Draft International Standard (DIS). We should have some updates on the progress of the DIS later in December, but hopefully, the news will not be a delay of publication until 2016. The following is a summary of the status before last that meeting.

Updated ISO 13485 and ISO 9001 Standards Being Released

In 2015, there will be a new international version of ISO 9001 released. This new version will have dramatic changes to the standard–including the addition of a new section on risk management and adoption of the new High-Level Structure (HLS) changing from 9 sections to 11. The ISO 13485 standard is also anticipated to have a new international version released in 2015, but the ISO 13485 standard will maintain the current HLS with nine sections. Timing of the ISO 9001:2015 release and the ISO 13485:2015 release will likely be around the same time (Correction: the ISO 13485:2016 standard was released in February 2016). Both standards are expected to have a three-year transition period for implementation. The combination of the three-year transition and lessened requirements in the new version of ISO 9001 for a structured quality manual should allow most manufacturers to wait until the ISO 13485 release before they begin drafting a quality plan for compliance with the new standards. Some of my clients have already indicated that they may drop their ISO 9001 certification when it expires, instead of changing their quality system to comply with the ISO 9001:2015 requirements. However, my clients will not have the ability to allow their ISO 13485 certification to lapse. Will Health Canada be updating GD210 and continue to require ISO 13485 certification for medical device licensing? What should companies do?

Update on the reconciliation of ISO 13485:2016 and ISO 9001:2015 on May 29, 2020:

GD210 was never updated, and instead, it was replaced the MDSAP
ISO 13485:2016 certification, under the MDSAP program, is required for Canadian Medical Device Licensing
Many device companies have dropped the ISO 9001 certification.

Recommendations

From the experience of preparing for the ISO 13485:2016 and ISO 9001:2015 releases, I learned that obtaining draft versions of the standards before publication is invaluable. I was able to use the drafts to help prepare quality plans for the transition. Second, companies need to train their management teams and auditors on the differences between the current and the new standards to enable a gap analysis to be completed. Any manager that is responsible for a procedure required by the current version of a standard should receive training specific to the changes to understand how they will meet the requirements for documented information. Most companies will need to improve their risk management competency (which was updated again in December 2019). I recommend that companies begin drafting their quality plans and enter discussions with their certification body for quality system changes as early as possible. I also recommend that medical device companies maintain a quality manual structure that follows the ISO 13485:2016 standard rather than the ISO 9001:2015 standard. Following ISO 13485:2016 will help everyone locate information faster.

There is also specific text in the introduction of ISO 9001:2015 that states it is not the intent of the standard to imply the need to align your quality management system to the clause structure of the standard. Companies that maintain ISO 9001 certification should consider including cross-references between the two standards in their quality manual.

Historical Note

There are also European National (EN) versions of each standard (e.g., EN ISO 13485:2012). The EN versions are harmonized with the EU directives, but the content of the body or normative sections of the standards are identical. Historically, the differences were explained in Annex ZA, and that was the last Annex in the EN version of the standard. In 2009 the harmonization annex for ISO 14971 (i.e., the medical device risk management standard) was split into three parts to match up with the three directives for medical devices (i.e., the MDD, AIMD, and IVDD). The new annexes (i.e., ZA, ZB, and ZC) were moved to the front of the EN version of the standard. The changes to ISO 14971 consisted of a correction and the change to Annex ZA. In 2012, there were new harmonization annexes created for ISO 13485 to follow the same format that was used for the EN ISO 14971 annexes. It is expected that these “zed” annexes will be released with a new EN version of the standard shortly after the international standard is published.

Tags: ISO 13485, ISO 13485 standard, ISO 9001, ISO 9001 standard, upcoming ISO 13485 and 9001 standards

Posted in: ISO 13485:2016, ISO 9001:2015, ISO Certification

Disposition of Nonconforming Materials-21 CFR 820.90 Compliance

Posted by Rob Packard on August 26, 2014

Disposition of Nonconforming Materials-21 CFR 820.90 Compliance focuses on determining a disposition method, including scrap, return to supplier, rework, use as-is, etc. Part 3 in our series will address process interactions with the non-conforming material process.

In our previous blog (http://bit.ly/Auditing-NCRs-Part1), we focused on requirements to identify and segregate non-conforming materials. Once nonconformities are labeled and locked in your quarantine cage, what do you do next?

The next step in the process for controlling non-conforming materials is to determine disposition. The most common dispositions are:

Scrap
Return to Supplier (RTS)
Rework
Use As Is (UAI)

Some companies also have dispositions of sort and repair. The sort is not a disposition, and often creates confusion for anyone auditing records of non-conforming materials. Sorting is the process that you must perform when a lot of material fails to meet acceptance criteria. Still, some of the individual units within the lot meet the acceptance criteria. In this scenario, the following sequence of events is recommended.

Sorting

First, the lot is segregated from a conforming product, and an NCR number is assigned. Next, the lot is 100% inspected for the defect, and the results of the inspection are recorded on the inspection record. It is important to record the specific number of non-conforming units on the NCR record–not the total amount inspected. The final step is to release a conforming product back into the production process or warehouse, and the Material Review Board (MRB) will disposition the units identified as non-conforming.

If identifying non-conforming product requires an inspection method that is not typically performed, then the inspection plan needs to be corrected, or a corrective action plan is needed. New and unforeseen defects may indicate a process change, a change in the raw materials, or inadequate training of personnel at your company or your supplier. An investigation of the root cause is needed, and it is recommended to consider documenting this investigation as an internal CAPA or a Supplier Corrective Action Request (SCAR).

Material Review Board (MRB)

Most companies have a “Material Review Board” (MRB) that is responsible for making the decision related to the disposition of non-conforming material. Typically, the MRB will be scheduled once per week to review the most recent nonconformities. The board usually consists of a cross-functional team, such as:

Quality Assurance
Research & Development
Manufacturing
Supply Chain
Regulatory

The reason for a cross-functional team is to review the potential adverse effects of rework and potential risks associated with a UAI disposition. If rework is required, the cross-functional team will typically have the necessary expertise to create a rework instruction and to review and approve that rework instruction–including any additional inspections that may be required beyond the standard inspection work instructions.

Scrap

If the material is going to be scrapped, there is no risk to patients or users. Therefore, the entire MRB team should not be required to scrap products. Because there may be a cost associated with a scrap of non-conforming products, it is recommended that someone from accounting and a quality assurance representative approve scrap dispositions. Other departments should be notified of scrap, but a trend analysis of all non-conforming products should be reviewed by each department and by top management during management reviews. Auditors and FDA inspectors, specifically, will be looking for evidence of statistical analysis of non-conforming material trends and the implementation of appropriate corrective actions.

Return to Supplier (RTS)

Returning non-conforming material to the supplier that produced it is the most common disposition, but the trend of RTS should continuously be improving. If the trend of RTS is not improving, your supplier qualification process or your supplier control may be inadequate. The best way to ensure that the trend is improving is to initiate a SCAR. Some companies automatically wait until they have a trend of non-conforming material before initiating a SCAR. However, if you wait until a defect occurs twice, you are doubling the number of nonconformities for that root cause. If you wait until a defect occurs three times, you are tripling the nonconformities. For this disposition, there also does not need to be approved from the entire MRB. Typically, only someone from the supply chain management and quality assurance are needed to return non-conforming product to a supplier.

Rework

Almost every auditor looks for a specific phrase in the procedure for Control of Nonconforming Material: “The MRB will review and document the potential adverse effects of rework.” Most companies are doing this, but the procedures often do not specifically state this requirement, and rework instructions are often missing any specific inspection instructions that have been added to reduce risks associated with the rework process. Repeating the normal inspection criteria is seldom adequate for reworked product, because the rework process typically results in different defects.

Another phrase that auditors and inspectors are looking for is the requirement to document the rework instructions, and to have the instructions reviewed and approved by the same functions that reviewed and approved the normal production process. This requirement is often not specifically stated in the procedure, and FDA 483 inspection observations are commonly issued for this oversight.

Use As Is (UAI)

The UAI disposition should be rare. When I see a large number of NCRs with a disposition of UAI, I expect one of two reasons for this situation. First, the NCRs are for cosmetic defects where the acceptance criteria are too subjective and inspectors need clear guidelines regarding acceptable blemishes and unacceptable nonconformities. The visual inspection guides used during solder joint inspection for printed circuit boards is an excellent example of best practices for clearly defining visual inspection criteria. Personally, I prefer to use a digital camera to take pictures of representative “good” and “bad” parts. Then I create a visual inspection chart with a green, smiley face for “good” and a red, frowny face for “bad.” The best inspection charts identify the proper inspection equipment and quantitative acceptance criteria with pictures and symbols instead of words.

The second reason for a larger percentage of UAI dispositions is that the product specifications exceed the design inputs. For example, if a threaded rod needs to be at least 1” long, but a 1.25” long is acceptable, then you should not approve a drawing with a specification of 1.00” +/- 0.05”. Often, the legend of drawings will define a default tolerance that is unnecessary. A more appropriate specification would be 1.13” +/- 0.12”. No matter how much work it is to specifically define tolerances for each dimension on a drawing, the work required to do this at the time of initial drawing approval is much less than the work required to justify a UAI disposition. FDA inspectors will consider a UAI disposition as a potential adulterated or misbranded product, and a formal Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) may be required to justify the reason why product is not recalled.

Regardless of the disposition of product, the decision for disposition should be a streamlined process that is not delayed unnecessarily. In order to ensure that your non-conforming material dispositions are effective and processed in a timely manner, our next blog (http://bit.ly/MDA-Blog) in the series about control of non-conforming materials will focus on process interactions, monitoring and measuring of non-conforming product and when to initiate a CAPA or SCAR to prevent more NCRs.

Tags: 21 CFR 820.90, 21 CFR 820.90 compliance, disposition of nonconforming materials, medical device nonconforming materials, nonconforming material, nonconforming materials

Posted in: ISO Certification

Stage 2 audit preparation for ISO 13485 certification – Part 2

Posted by Rob Packard on March 26, 2014

In this article, you will learn what ISO 13485 stage 2 audit preparation you should complete specific to training records and practice interviews.
Create a training matrix to prepare for the Stage 2 audit

If you aren’t sure what is ISO 13485? please visit our 2-part training webinars. During your Stage 1 ISO 13485 Certification audit, the auditor verifies that your company has all 28 procedures required in ISO 13485:2016. During the Stage 2 audit preparation, however, the auditor will be reviewing training records for each employee. A training matrix is one of the best tools for verifying that your training records are completed. First, you create a table of all 28 required procedures in Excel (this is your far left column). Across the top of the table, you need to list each of the employees in your organization. This would be difficult for a large organization, but most companies seeking initial ISO 13485 certification have less than 20 employees. In your training matrix, you need to identify which procedures each employee must be trained on. This is one of the most common ways to identify training requirements, and color-coding the matrix works is helpful.

Once you have defined your training requirements, review and approve this document as a controlled document that you will maintain as the company grows. However, as the company grows, you may convert specific names to job functions. Once the training requirements matrix is reviewed and approved, you should enter the date that training was completed for each employee. This is a more effective check than the “checkbox” approach, and it enables you to verify that everyone was trained since the last revision of any procedure. Now, you have a summary document to prove that 100% of your employees have current training on each of the 28 required procedures.

Interview employees as part of your Stage 2 audit preparation

During the Stage 2 audit, any of the employees could be interviewed by the auditor. As part of your Stage 2 audit preparation, you should interview each employee on your training matrix by asking them the following open-ended questions:

Can you show me where I can find the company’s quality policy?
Please explain how the quality policy is relevant to your job?
Can you show me a copy of the training procedure?
What quality objectives do you or your department monitor?

The first question is typical of auditors. You don’t have to have the policy memorized, but every employee should know where to find it. My favorite location is the back of employee ID badges, but the quality policy needs to be updated periodically. If everyone has the policy on their ID badge, you might consider handing out updated stickers with the revised quality policy when you hand out paychecks. The second question is related to the first, and it verifies that each person understands the importance of their job function as it relates to quality.

The third question is a test to ensure every employee can locate procedures. Don’t help them, because the auditor won’t. After each employee answers the question, make sure you explain the correct answer concerning where the most current version of every procedure is. Redlined copies in a drawer do not exist. The person should also have read each procedure in their training matrix so that they can answer a question. It’s ok to say “I don’t remember,” but they shouldn’t guess.

The fourth question verifies that top management has established quality objectives for all functions and at all levels within the company. Every manager should have at least one quality objective they are tracking, and progress toward the quality objective should be visibly communicated to everyone in the department. Employees, especially managers, should also be aware of where quality objectives for the company as a whole are posted. Ideally, each employee will know how their job function contributes to one or more of these objectives.

Stage 2 audit preparation – How to handle “stage fright”

Anyone can get nervous when they are being interviewed by an auditor–even the most experienced managers. In particular, a large entourage of observers following an auditor can make the situation worse. Therefore, you should anticipate this and discuss this with every employee in your company when you are doing practice interviews. Tell them this is normal, and it’s ok to be nervous. Remind them to take a deep breath to settle their nerves. Assure employees that they will not get in trouble for being nervous, and the company will not fail and audit just because someone has difficulty answering a question. At worst, you will need to initiate a CAPA and do some more training. The best-case scenario for a certification audit is that you will need to initiate a CAPA and do some more training. Either way, the outcome is the same.

Congratulations on your successful Stage 2 audit preparation

Do not stress everyone out the day before your Stage 2 certification audit. You had six months to prepare, and everyone worked hard to help prepare the company. Now is the time to celebrate with your family. Everyone should go home on time and get a good night’s rest. Positive attitudes and relaxing are as crucial as all the work that has been completed. I learned this lesson the hard way during my first ISO 13485 Certification in 2004. We received certification, but I don’t recommend letting your boss turn purple with rage during the audit–it might be career limiting.

I have only made the mistake of staying up late the night before on one other occasion–and the client was not recommended for certification at the end of the Stage 2 audit. Fortunately, the auditor was able to schedule a follow-up audit within a few weeks, and we were able to address all the open issues at that time. The client received their ISO 13485 certificate and CE Certificate within three months of starting the project, and the certificates were just in time for an important trade show in Germany.

Additional training resources to prepare for ISO 13485:2016 certification

If you are interested in learning more about ISO Certification, please download Medical Device Academy’s whitepaper and watch our six-part webinar training certification course for ISO 13485:2016 certification preparation.

Tags: how to prepare for an ISO 13485 certification stage 2 audit-part 2, ISO 13485 certification, ISO 13485 certification stage 2 audit

Posted in: ISO Certification

Leave a Comment (0) →

Stage 2 Audit – How to Prepare for an ISO 13485 Certification – Part 1 of 2

Posted by Rob Packard on March 20, 2014

This blog teaches you how to prepare for a stage 2 audit on your pathway to ISO 13485 certification, and this blog is part 1 of 2.

If you are not sure what is ISO 13485? please consider our 2-part training webinar on the topic. Health Canada requires ISO 13485 certification as a requirement for all Medical Device License Applications, and most companies choose ISO 13485 certification as their method for demonstrating conformity to the requirements of the Medical Device Directive (MDD)–instead of a special MDD audit.

To achieve ISO 13485 certification, you must successfully complete a Stage 1 and Stage 2 certification audit with your chosen certification body. If you are interested in an overview of this certification process, you can download Medical Device Academy’s white paper on this topic, or you can watch a webinar we recorded recently on 6 steps to ISO 13485 Certification.

Management Processes are covered during the Stage 1 and Stage 2 audit

The Stage 1 audit is typically a one-day audit where the auditor is evaluating your readiness for the Stage 2 audit. The auditor will review your Quality Manual, and your procedures (19 are required) to ensure compliance with ISO 13485. Also, the auditor will sample records from critical processes to assess your readiness for the Stage 2 audit. Typically, these processes will be:

Management Review
CAPA
Internal Auditing

After you complete the Stage 1 audit, you may have a few nonconformities identified by the auditor. Responding to these nonconformities is the first step in preparing for your Stage 2 certification audit. You need to initiate a CAPA for each of the auditor’s findings and begin implementation before the Stage 2 audit. Typically, you will have about six weeks to implement these actions. This is not usually enough time to complete your CAPAs because you need more time before you can verify the effectiveness of corrective actions.

Preparing CAPA Records is critical for your Stage 2 audit

In preparation for your Stage 2 audit, prepare for the auditor to review any CAPAs that you completed since the Stage 1 audit–especially if you have evidence of completing an effectiveness check. You may think this is unnecessary because the auditor previously reviewed CAPAs during Stage 1. However, you probably received a nonconformity related to your CAPA process (almost everyone does), and you should expect auditors to review your CAPA process during every audit.

Each CAPA record you present should be provided in a separate folder as a paper, hardcopy. The paper, hardcopy makes it easier for the auditor to review. The folder should include documentation of the investigation, a concise statement of the root cause, and copies of records for all corrections and corrective actions implemented. Corrective actions include procedure revisions and training records. If there is a quantitative measurement of effectiveness, include a graph of current progress with the record. Ideally, the graph will be one of your quality objectives. The graph to the right is an example.

Production Process Controls will get the auditor out of the conference room

Every company has at least some production and process controls implemented before the Stage 2 certification audit. Most auditors and inspectors spend too much time in conference rooms reviewing paperwork and too little time interviewing people that are performing work. However, many companies also outsource production activities. Therefore, unless you have a software product, you can expect your auditor to review incoming inspection activities. The auditor is also likely to review the finished device inspection, storage, and distribution. If the auditor is thorough, they will also follow the trail from inspection activities to calibration activities, nonconforming materials, and data analysis.

Design Controls

If your company is a contract manufacturer, then you probably are excluding design controls (ISO 13485, Section 7.3) from the scope of your Quality System. However, if you are a manufacturer that performs design and development, then it is an element of the quality system that warrants special attention. During the Stage 1 certification audit, the auditor reviewed only your Design Control procedure. During Stage 2, the auditor will look for evidence of implementing design controls. Therefore, even if your company has not completed your first design project, the auditor will still want to see some evidence of implementation. The auditor will expect at least one design plan to be written, and at least one design review should be completed.

If you are familiar with the FDA Quality System Inspection Technique (QSIT) process for inspection, you might have noticed that this blog is divided into the same subsections identified in the QSIT Manual.

Tags: how to prepare for an ISO 13485 certification stage 2 audit, ISO 13485 certification, medical device regulatory compliance, Stage 2 audit

Posted in: ISO Certification

Leave a Comment (0) →

6 Points for Effective Training on Medical Device QMS Procedures

Posted by Brigid Glass - Guest Blogger on October 28, 2013

The author provides 6 points for conducting effective training on medical device QMS procedures, including questions to ask for building consistent procedures.

Your Quality Management System (QMS) needs to provide objective evidence (i.e., records) that your staff is trained on procedures they use, and that their training was effective. You must also establish documented requirements for competency. The following examples might help:

A record of you attending a course is a training record.
A record of your taking and passing an exam related to that course is a record of training effectiveness.
A record of you performing a procedure, witnessed by the trainer, is a record of competency. Your resume can also be a record of competency.

Unless a change is trivial in nature, signing a piece of paper that states you read and understood a procedure does not demonstrate training effectiveness. Learning and training are active processes that require engagement and interaction.

In a previous blog (http://bit.ly/12PartSOPTemplate), I described a slightly different procedure structure with some extra sections. There are a number of benefits to that structure, one of which is that the structure facilitates training. The additional sections are referred to in this blog. Whatever template you use, consistency of structure, and presentation across your procedures makes the procedures easier to learn and increases usability.

6 Points to Consider for Effective Training on Medical Device QMS Procedures

Training requirements. For a new procedure, decide early in your writing which roles require training, what content is needed, and to what level is competency necessary. The example below is a table from a Quality Auditing procedure. The table shows the different requirements for different roles. I prefer to put this information in the procedure document—where it is unlikely to be overlooked or forgotten.
Open book? For each of the roles listed above, determine whether you need trainees to be able to follow the procedure without the document at hand, or to know the procedure, and be able to find what they need.
Training method. One-on-one or group? Classroom style, on-job, or remote? This depends on your company, nature of the procedure, and your requirements above.
PowerPoint or not? My preference is to walk trainees through the procedure, actually have them flipping the pages and writing notes on it. If I use PowerPoint, it’s to clarify the structure and emphasize important points.
Control of training copies. Paper copies of procedures and forms used for training should be controlled. Your Document Control procedure should allow for clearly marked “Training” copies to be available before the effective date. Make sure your training also reminds trainees where to find the official released a copy of procedures after training is completed.
Control of training material. Include your slides, training scenarios, quizzes, etc. in your document control system. Review and revise them each time you change a procedure.

Building Consistent Procedures: Questions to Ask and Recommendations

Use a consistent structure for your procedures, then build a consistent training structure around that. The predictability in structure will improve the effectiveness of your training.

Purpose. Why are we doing this? What is the outcome we are after?
Scope. When do I use this procedure? When do I not, and what do I do as an alternative?
References. How does this interface to other procedures? Turtle diagrams or interface maps are useful here
Definitions. Unfamiliar jargon, and terms that are used in a very specific way in this procedure
Risk. What risks does this procedure address? How does this affect the design of the procedure – why are we doing it that way? Refer to my earlier blog (http://bit.ly/12PartSOPTemplate) where I explain how to include this in each procedure
The procedure. Walkthrough the flowchart, explain the accompanying notes, relate the procedure flow to the responsibilities and authorities outlined earlier in the procedure
Records. What do I do with the completed records from this procedure? Where do I find a copy when I need it?
Examples. I suggest a training version of the form (which should be available later for reference) with guidance and examples
Practice. Provide a scenario and a blank form for trainees to work through, individually or in groups
Testing. Check that the training has been effective. The role competencies that were defined earlier are the basis for the effectiveness criteria for a procedure. This training module may be enough to achieve that level, or a broader training program may be required to ensure operational level competence. See Rob Packard’s blog on training exams for more advice on testing (http://bit.ly/TrainingExams)

Tags: Medical Device, medical device QMS procedures, medical device QMS procedures training, medical device quality training

Posted in: ISO Certification

Leave a Comment (0) →

Page 2 of 4 123 4