Search Results for: 13485

How to make a supplier questionnaire for remote auditing

Leave a Comment / ISO Auditing, Supplier Quality Management / By

You already have a supplier questionnaire, but do you know how to make a supplier questionnaire to assess a supplier’s ability to support a remote audit?

FRM 004 Supplier Questionnaire How to make a supplier questionnaire for remote auditing

The four most significant mistakes people make when designing a supplier questionnaire

In Medical Device Academy’s supplier qualification webinar, you learn how to improve your supplier qualification process by replacing the traditional methods of supplier qualification with more effective approaches to supplier evaluation. The following are four examples of how to improve your supplier questionnaire.

Supplier questionnaires should be specific to the product or service provided

The first mistake people make is to use a generic questionnaire. It would be best if you asked your supplier questions that are important to the work that the supplier will be performing. Therefore, each category of product or service should have its own set of questions. For example, important questions related to ethylene oxide contract sterilization services are the maximum size limitations for pallets in the sterilization chamber and whether the facility can conduct sterility testing on-site. However, an injection molding supplier might delay the return of your supplier questionnaire if these questions were on the survey that you send to them because they don’t understand the questions.

Supplier surveys should be more than checkboxes

The second mistake people make is to ask questions that can be answered with a “yes” or “no” response or a checkbox. These are closed-ended questions. It would be best if you always were asking open-ended questions because the response will give you more information about the supplier. In addition, most people resist responding with a “no” response even if the real answer is “no.” For example, “What is your FDA registration number?” is more useful than “Is your company FDA registered?” Another example is, “How many production lines use SPC charts?” instead of “Do you use SPC charts?” In fact, in the open-ended version of this question, you will learn if the use of SPC charts is widespread, and you learn how many production lines the supplier has.

Remember to ask suppliers to update survey surveys every year

The third mistake people make is to request that a supplier questionnaire be completed only during the initial supplier qualification process. Every year companies grow, shrink, or change. If you ask suppliers to update their questionnaire, you can use that information to determine the health of your supplier’s business. You might also discover that one supplier just added a new production capability that will allow you to consolidate more of your outsourced work with that supplier and eliminate another problem supplier. Every company has a turnover in personnel as well. It is a great idea to ask suppliers to provide contact information for multiple people in the organization, such as quality contact, billing contact, and a production planner. Eventually, you will probably need to speak with each of these people, and if one of the contacts is no longer at your supplier, you will still have two other contacts. Updating this information also gives you a hint of whether turnover is widespread or limited to a specific individual.

Supplier questionnaires should be in spreadsheet format

The fourth mistake people make is to send a Word Document for suppliers to complete (PDF format is even worse). Word and PDF formats are time-consuming to complete, and they are harder for you to analyze than a spreadsheet. Most people provide a Word document or a PDF because they are focusing on the requirement for control of records. However, if you have an electronic quality system, the supplier survey information will be part of your electronic system as soon as you enter the data into your software. Alternatively, if you have a paper-based quality system, then you can print the spreadsheet out, sign it, and date it. The huge advantage of using Excel spreadsheets is that you can copy the new data into a column next to the previous year’s responses. Then you can quickly see what changes your supplier made in the past year.

What should you add to your supplier questionnaire?

Most private companies will not share what their revenues are for the business, but as a customer, you should be more concerned with how many human resources your supplier has. Therefore, you should consider asking, “How many employees, or full-time equivalents (FTEs), work for your company?” You might also want to know if your supplier is relying on a temporary workforce. For example, “What percentage of the FTEs are temporary workers?” Many questionnaires will ask for the square footage of the facility, but this doesn’t provide you with any details about the facility layout. Alternatively, you could ask for a copy of the pest-control map for the facility. This would give you a detailed layout of the facility, and it also confirms that your supplier has a pest control plan for the facility. Another related question to ask is, “Please describe any expansion/construction projects that have been implemented in the past year or projects that are in progress (e.g., the addition of a mezzanine).” If the company added 30,000 square feet to their production area, but there was no change to the pest control plan, you might have some clarification questions for your supplier. In general, a good strategy for developing your questionnaire is to think of at least one open-ended question related to each clause of the ISO 13485:2016 standard without referencing the standard. The following are some examples that might help you:

  1. When was the last software re-validation for quality system software?
  2. How many active external standards is your company currently maintaining?
  3. Please provide a list of procedures and identify the person who would be interviewed during an audit for each procedure (i.e., process owner or subject matter expert).
  4. In the absence of the management representative, who is designated as the liaison for an FDA inspector?
  5. What are the upper control limits for particulate counts, air viable counts, and surface viable counts in your controlled environment(s)?
  6. On what dates was the environmental monitoring of controlled environments conducted in the last year?
  7. Please identify how many quality inspectors are responsible for the incoming inspection?
  8. Please list the calibration ID and equipment name for any inspection equipment that requires specialized training (e.g., CMM)?
  9. How many suppliers are on your approved supplier list (ASL)? And how many suppliers did you audit in the past year?
  10. How many nonconforming material reports (NCMRs) were opened in the past year? And how many NCMRs currently remain open?
  11. How many partial or complete lots were returned to your company by customers in the past year?
  12. Please list any corrections and removals (i.e., recalls) that your company has been involved in during the past year and the current status?

How many questions should your supplier questionnaire include?

There are 28 required procedures in ISO 13485:2016, and there are even more subclauses within the standard. It is an excellent idea to create a list of questions you might ask for each subclause, but a supplier questionnaire should not include all of those questions. Just as audits are just a sampling, your supplier survey questions should be sampling as well. You should review last year’s questions and eliminate questions that you think are not especially useful for that supplier. Some questions should be asked each year to assess if the quality system has changed significantly, and you should consider adding a few new questions each year. The best questions will require the person to perform some research to answer the questions. But it is unreasonable to expect a supplier to spend more than two hours completing a supplier questionnaire if you plan to purchase less than $20,000 in product or services.

Supplier questionnaires specific to remote auditing

In many ways, a well-designed supplier questionnaire is similar to a remote audit, because you are asking the supplier to answer multiple open-ended questions about their quality system to verify that the quality system is fully implemented and remains effective. However, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, many employees are now required to work from home, and it is not possible to physically visit certain facilities. Therefore, you should be adding three elements to your supplier questionnaire to assess your supplier’s ability to support a remote audit and to determine their ability to maintain the effectiveness of the quality system during a viral outbreak. The three elements are 1) policies for personal protective equipment for employees and visitors, 2) business continuity plans to maintain internal operations and to ensure redundancy of crucial suppliers, and 3) availability of digital documents and records or paper documents and records via video conference software. These three areas were also the subject of a previous blog on changes triggered by Covid-19. It would help if you also asked about the availability of hardware and software communication tools for conducting a remote audit. You might ask your supplier, “Which areas of your facility can we observe during a remote audit using live video conferencing (e.g., Zoom mobile application)?” and “What experience does your company have in the use of Zoom as a video conferencing tool?”

Gimbal How to make a supplier questionnaire for remote auditing

Access to documents and records during remote audits

During a remote audit, you will need to access documents and records virtually. If your supplier can participate via a video conferencing tool with a high definition web camera or smartphone, then you should be able to see any documents and records that you could normally see during an on-site audit. However, your supplier will need to hold the document or records steady, possibly by using a music stand and a camera tripod so that you can take notes regarding the contents of the document or record. You will also need a way to record your notes. You might try using a Pixelbook or similar computer to write your audit notes. At the same time, you watch the video conference using a second computer–possibly on a conference room projector screen or large flat screen monitor. You could also use a tablet, such as remarkable. Of course, you can always use a pad of paper and a pen and then transcribe your notes later. All of these methods will be faster and more convenient than digitally scanning each document and uploading the documents to a shared folder or sending the scanned document by email.

It would help if you also were asking your supplier which records are already available digitally. You can expect all of the quality system procedures to be available in digital formats, but many records may already be available electronically as well. For example, purchase orders, quality system certificates, drawings, and blank forms should be available in digital format. In a supplier audit, you typically will focus on a subset of the quality system records that are related to production process controls, purchasing, incoming inspection, shipping, and control of the nonconforming product. Asking your supplier which of these records are available in digital format will help you determine which records you need to request from the supplier in advance and which records can be requested on-demand.

How to obtain our supplier questionnaire template (FRM-004)

If you are interested in purchasing our supplier questionnaire template, FRM-004, it is included with the purchase of our supplier qualification webinar. If you think of any new questions to add to this template, please email me at rob@13485cert.com. Just put “FRM-004 Suggestion” in the subject line.

How to make a supplier questionnaire for remote auditing Read More »

How to avoid the most common supplier evaluation mistakes

1 Comment / Supplier Quality Management / By /

The focus of this article is on the process of supplier evaluation and re-evaluation for medical device companies and how to document your evaluations.
No Grandfathering Image How to avoid the most common supplier evaluation mistakes

You have several suppliers today, but did you have a rigorous supplier evaluation process when you first hired those suppliers? If your business is going to be successful, you need to treat your supplier evaluation process as a critical strategic process. Supplier qualification and is more important than the hiring of any senior manager. ISO 13485:2016 requires you to have a procedure for supplier evaluation and re-evaluation, but the type and extent of your supplier controls are not specified.

Which of your suppliers are critical or crucial?

Crucial suppliers were defined in a draft policy published by the European Commission as part of the introduction of the requirement for unannounced audits. Essential suppliers make a component or subassembly that is high-risk, or your firm cannot easily purchase the component or subassembly from another supplier. Critical suppliers for medical device manufacturers fall into one of three categories: 1) a contract manufacturer, 2) a contract sterilizer, or 3) a contract packager or labeler. These three types of suppliers may be selected for unannounced audits by a Notified Body. The FDA also requires these three categories of suppliers to register their facility.

Should you establish other supplier evaluation categories?

The short answer is no. The purpose of categories is to ensure that a large number of suppliers are consistently managed. Instead, try reducing the number of suppliers you are managing. Give your best suppliers more work, and fire the worst suppliers. If a component is “single-source,” encourage another supplier to quote that business before you look for a new supplier. It would be best if you took the time to evaluate each supplier thoroughly. If you don’t have the supply chain resources to do this, then you have three choices: 1) hire another person to help manage your supply chain, 2) fire suppliers that are not meeting your requirements, or 3) replace the weakest member of your supply chain team.

How do you re-evaluate existing suppliers now?

There are a lot of possible answers to this question, but unfortunately, the most common answer is, “because that’s who we’ve always used.” This practice, referred to as “grandfathering,” is a horrible approach to supplier re-evaluation. Suppliers that miss your requested delivery dates, and suppliers that ship nonconforming product should be required to implement supplier corrective actions immediately. You need to follow-up on these corrective actions and verify that the corrective actions were effective. If the corrective actions are not effective, or if new supplier issues occur, then you should find an alternate supplier as soon as possible.

Another stupid reason for selecting a supplier is “because they were the lowest bidder.” There’s an old government contracting joke about this strategy. It sounds something like this, “a million mission-critical parts, designed by engineers that have no clue what the real world is like, built by the lowest bidder, and inspected by a bureaucrat that can be bribed with a bottle of wine and some prime rib.” I tend to discount the quality of the lowest bidder every time. I always wonder what they forgot to consider when they bid on the job. If the lowest bidding supplier can explain why they have an inherent advantage over their competition, then maybe you should consider hiring them. If there is no rational reason why a supplier’s pricing is below their competition, this usually means that the supplier is desperate, or they plan to increase their pricing after you are a customer.

What should be your supplier evaluation and re-evaluation criteria?

All medical device suppliers should have a quality system, but ISO certification is not required. Therefore, if a supplier has ISO 13485 certification, you might abbreviate your initial supplier qualification process. However, ISO 13485 certification should have minimal impact upon your on-going supplier evaluation process. You need to know how well your supplier’s quality system is being maintained. If your supplier is sharing copies of their annual surveillance audits and FDA inspection reports with you, this will give you a better indication of the quality system effectiveness.

Consider performing supplier audits for supplier evaluation

Although it is not required, the best way to evaluate the effectiveness of a supplier’s quality system is to perform a supplier audit. Specifically, you should focus on the processes that are directly related to your product or component. Production process controls and final inspection are the most critical areas to audit. Other areas that are important to consider for supplier audits are 1) incoming inspection, 2) purchasing controls, 3) shipping, and 4) control of nonconforming materials. Conducting a supplier audit using the process approach is the most effective method. The process approach method of auditing will ensure that document control, record control, calibration, process validation, and training are sampled as support processes. The supplier audits may also be conducted as on-site audits or remote audits.

Certificate of Conformity (CoC) vs. Certificate of Analysis (CoA)

Another supplier evaluation criteria should be product conformity. You should be reviewing more than whether your supplier shipped the correct product and the correct quantity. Did your supplier provide a Certificate of Analysis (CoA) that summarized the inspection methods, acceptance criteria, and the inspection results? Or do you verify that a Certificate of Conformity (CoC) was included and accept the lot you received? If your company is only receiving a CoC from a supplier, you should be sampling the product at incoming inspection and verifying that the product is conforming with your requirements. Even if the supplier is providing a CoA, you should still perform periodic sampling and inspection of the product to make sure the CoA provided matches the actual product you are receiving.

Considering Improving your supplier questionnaires

If your company is requesting that suppliers complete supplier questionnaires, make sure that you are asking the most relevant questions. You need to know if your supplier can support remote audits. You need to know if there have been any significant changes to the quality system. You need to know if the company has had any significant non-conformities resulting from certification body audits. You need to know if there have been FDA inspections and what the results of the inspection were. You should also be obtaining monitoring and measurement data related to process conformity and product conformity. Asking your supplier to identify any shutdown periods or planned renovations is a required input for critical and crucial suppliers for CE Marked medical devices subject to unannounced audits. It would help if you also were asking your supplier to update the names, titles, and contact information for key management personnel. Would you like a copy of our supplier questionnaire?

No Grandfathering Image 1 e1591549101295 How to avoid the most common supplier evaluation mistakes

What should you be doing to address the Covid-19 pandemic?

As a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic, many suppliers have had significant disruptions to their supply chains, workforce availability, and transportation vendors. Since many medical device products are urgently needed during this pandemic, it is important to ask suppliers to provide a summary of their current situation and any analysis they have done to assess potential risks that could disrupt your supply chain. Does your supplier have adequate personal protective equipment (PPE)? What type of precautions is being taken to ensure that employees don’t exhibit symptoms of Covid-19 illness? Does your supplier have a policy for self-quarantining if an employee is exposed to someone that has the virus? Does your supplier have a disaster recovery plan?

Consider using size for supplier evaluation

Bigger is not always better. If you are a small customer of a large supplier, your needs will seldom be important to your supplier. Alternatively, if your company is much larger than your supplier, your supplier may not have the resources to grow with you and keep up with your current demand. When you are initially qualifying suppliers, try to select suppliers that are approximately the same size as your company or slightly larger. You should also consider identifying more suitably sized suppliers if you have a significant size mismatch or one develops over time.

What if you don’t have the resources to evaluate your suppliers?

Supplier evaluation and re-evaluation is a strategic function that impacts your profits, your ability to deliver product on-time to your customers, and nonconforming product can tarnish your company’s reputation. Therefore, your company needs to invest resources to analyze your supply chain. It would help if you had suppliers that have excellent quality and suppliers that will encourage your company to improve. Are there best practices you can learn from your suppliers? Is your supplier able to help you manage your inventory? Can your suppliers help you solve production problems? Supplier evaluation should only be secondary in importance to your design process and post-market surveillance. As they say, “garbage in equals garbage out.”

Do you need additional training on supplier evaluation?

On June 25, 2020, at 11 am EDT, and we are hosting a live webinar on how to qualify your suppliers. In this webinar, you will learn how to qualify new suppliers even if they don’t have ISO certification and best practices in supplier evaluation. We will be sharing a new supplier questionnaire that includes questions to help you assess whether a supplier is capable of supporting remote audits. We will help you develop a strategy for the allocation of supply chain personnel, and show you how to convince top management to prioritize supplier audits.

How to avoid the most common supplier evaluation mistakes Read More »

MDSAP Certification Body

Leave a Comment / By

MDSAP certification body list for MDSAP certification and Notified Body list for CE Marking as of May 17, 2020.

Cropped Front of Card MDSAP Certification Body

How to Select an ISO 13485:2016, MDSAP Certification Body

If you only want an ISO 13485:2016 certificate, but you don’t need an MDSAP certificate, you can save time and money by contacting the Eagle Certification Group. Eagle Registrations Inc is accredited by the ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB) for ISO 9001:2015 and ISO 13485:2016, but they are not an MDSAP Auditing Organization (AO) or a Notified Body (NB). If your company wants to apply for a Canadian Medical Device License, you are required to obtain ISO 13485:2016 certification from one of the recognized MDSAP Auditing Organizations. The FDA maintains a list of these auditing organizations (AOs). There are a total of 16 AOs on the list. However, only 12 of the AOs are also designated by European Member States as Notified Bodies (NBs) responsible for CE Marking Medical Devices. Below is our list of the AOs that are also NBs (in alphabetic order), and only 16 of the 49 NBs (30%) are designated under the new EU MDR. According to the European Commission, 44 NBs have applied for designation under the new EU MDR, but the Turkish NBs were not included in count total of 49 NBs listed above.

  1. *BSI Group (Designated under new EU MDR – NB No. 0086 & 2797)
  2. *Dekra Certification (Designated under new EU MDR – NB No. 0124 & 0344)
  3. *DNV GL Presafe (Designated under new EU MDR – NB No. 2460)
  4. DQS MED (Designated under new EU MDR – NB No. 0297)
  5. *LNE/GMED (Designated under new EU MDR – NB No. 0459)
  6. Intertek (Designated under new EU MDR – NB No. 0413)
  7. MED/CERT (Designated under new EU MDR – NB No. 0482)
  8. *NSAI (Designated under new EU MDR – NB No. 0050)
  9. *SGS (Designated under current MDD – NB No. 0120 & 1639)
  10. *TUV Rheinland (Designated under new EU MDR – NB No. 0035)
  11. *TUV SUD (Designated under new EU MDR – NB No. 0123)
  12. TUV NORD (Designated under current MDD – NB 0044)

*MDSAP Certification Bodies that have applied for designation under IVDR

Of the 12 AO’s above that are also NBs, only 8 NBs have applied for designation under the IVDR, and only 2 have received designation:

  1. BSI Group – Designated under IVDR – NB No. 0086 & 2797
  2. Dekra Certification – Designated under IVDR – NB No. 0124 & 0344
  3. DNV GL Pre-Safe – Awaiting designation under IVDR – NB No. 2460
  4. LNE/GMED – Awaiting designation under IVDR – NB No. 0459
  5. NSAI – Awaiting designation under IVDR – NB No. 0050
  6. SGS – Awaiting designation under IVDR – NB No. 0120 & 1639
  7. TUV Rheinland – Awaiting designation under IVDR – NB No. 0035
  8. TUV SUD – Awaiting designation under IVDR – NB No. 0123

Interviews with MDSAP Certification Bodies

As part of our research for our book on remote auditing techniques, we will be interviewing each of the 12 MDSAP Certification Bodies listed above. Our goal is to learn about the remote auditing policies that each of these MDSAP Certification Bodies have implemented during the COVID19 pandemic. We also will be providing a list of contact information for the contact(s) at each MDSAP Certification Body in order to obtain a quotation for initial MDSAP Certification.

MDSAP Certification Body Read More »

Implant Card Procedure (SYS-037)

Leave a Comment / By

The video below shows you exactly what you will receive when you purchase our implant card procedure (SYS-037) and webinar bundle.

Your cart is empty

What’s included in implant card procedure webinar bundle?

A checklist for information to be supplier to the patient with implants, an implant card checklist, an implant card training webinar and an exam are included with the implant card procedure. These documents are updated for ISO 13485:2016 and the new European Regulations. This procedure meets the requirements of Article 18 in Regulation (EU) 2017/745. The following is a list of items included in this bundle:

  • SYS-037 A, Implant Card Procedure
  • FRM-044 Checklist for Information to be supplied to the patient with an implant
  • FRM-045 Implant Card Checklist for Article 18 Reg 2017-745
  • Link to YouTube Recording of the Implant Card Webinar
  • 10 Question Quiz for Training Effectiveness with Training Certificate

Implant Card Webinar Implant Card Procedure (SYS 037)

The implant card webinar, “Implantable Devices and Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/745,” is a 23-minute webinar presented by Matthew Walker.

Implant Card Procedure Implant Card Procedure (SYS 037)
SYS-037 - Implant Card Procedure, Forms, Webinar and Exam Bundle
SYS-037, This procedure meets the requirements of Article 18 in the new Regulation (EU) 2017/745 for implantable devices. The bundle includes two associated forms, a training webinar, and a 10 question quiz for training effectiveness. We will correct your quiz and provide a training certificate when you complete the quiz and submit it to Medical Device Academy for grading.
Price: $299.00

If you need help with implant cards…

If you need help with implant cards for your medical device, please contact us at Medical Device Academy. We also have an EU Regulation webinar series to prepare you for implementation of the new EU regulations. We will also be preparing other other training webinars specific to the new EU regulations this fall. You can schedule a call using the following calendly link.​​

Please note: This product will be delivered to the email address provided in the shopping cart transaction. After the transaction is verified, please check your email for the download. To view all available procedures click here.

Implant Card Procedure (SYS-037) Read More »

Audit Team Communication Webinar

Leave a Comment / By

The audit team communication webinar will teach you best practices for using technology–especially when conducting remote audits.

Stop playing telephone pix Audit Team Communication Webinar

What you will learn in the Audit Team Communication Webinar

  • Requirements for audit team communication as defined in ISO 19011:2018
  • How, what and when to communicate with auditees, guides and observers during an audit
  • Responsibilities of audit team members with regard to audit team communication
  • Responsibilities of the lead auditor with regard to audit team communication
  • Audit team meetings during an audit
  • Sharing audit trails with other audit team members
  • Best practices in using modern hardware and software technology to improve audit team communication
  • Important considerations for remote audits

Who should attend the Opening Meetings Webinar?

  • Lead auditors,
  • Audit team members,
  • Senior management,
  • Supplier Quality,
  • Purchasing, and
  • Quality Assurance.

Other Resources

You may also be interested in our procedure for Quality Audits (SYS-021). That procedure includes the following documents:

  • Quality Audits (SYS-021)
  • Audit Log (LST-007)
  • Supplier-Internal Audit Report Template (TMP-003)

What you will receive when you register for this webinar

  • Native slide deck
  • Login information for live webinar (up until June 3, 2020)
  • Access to recording after live webinar

To register for this webinar, please fill in the form below.

There are four other new live webinars planned on related topics:

  1. Opening Meetings Webinar (free) – May 14, 2020
  2. How to qualify your suppliers webinar (pre-order by June 1) – June 25, 2020
  3. Remote auditing techniques webinar (pre-order by July 1) – July 16, 2020
  4. Interviews with MDSAP auditing organizations (free) – August 6, 2020

Anyone that watches all 5 webinars planned for May 14 – August 6, 2020, and reads our new book (released on Amazon in August 2020) will receive a certificate for “Remote Auditing Certification” as a thank you for your loyalty and hard work. We will include the information you need for submitting continuing education credits to ASQ, RAPs, etc. My friend John M. gave me that idea back in 2012, and that is why “Academy” is in our name.

About Your Instructor

Winter in VT 2024 150x150 Audit Team Communication Webinar

Rob Packard is a regulatory consultant with ~25 years of experience in the medical device, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology industries. He is a graduate of UConn in Chemical Engineering. Rob was a senior manager at several medical device companies—including the President/CEO of a laparoscopic imaging company. His Quality Management System expertise covers all aspects of developing, training, implementing, and maintaining ISO 13485 and ISO 14971 certifications. From 2009 to 2012, he was a lead auditor and instructor for one of the largest Notified Bodies. Rob’s specialty is regulatory submissions for high-risk medical devices, such as implants and drug/device combination products for CE marking applications, Canadian medical device applications, and 510(k) submissions. The most favorite part of his job is training others. He can be reached via phone at 802.281.4381 or by email. You can also follow him on YouTube, LinkedIn, or Twitter.

Audit Team Communication Webinar Read More »

Opening Meetings Webinar

Leave a Comment / By

The opening meetings webinar includes ISO 19011:2018 requirements, but we also focus on special considerations for conducting remote audits.

Picture for webpage 1 Opening Meetings Webinar

What you will learn in the Opening Meetings Webinar

  • Requirements for an opening meeting as defined in ISO 19011:2018
  • Requirements for a closing meeting as defined in ISO 19011:2018
  • Responsibilities of the lead auditor in opening and closing meetings
  • Important considerations for remote audits
  • Opening meeting and closing meeting differences for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd party audits

Who should attend the Opening Meetings Webinar?

  • Lead auditors,
  • Audit team members,
  • Senior management,
  • Supplier Quality,
  • Purchasing, and
  • Quality Assurance.

Other Resources

You may also be interested in our procedure for Quality Audits (SYS-021). That procedure includes the following documents:

  • Quality Audits (SYS-021)
  • Audit Log (LST-007)
  • Supplier-Internal Audit Report Template (TMP-003)

What you will receive when you register for this webinar

  • Native slide deck
  • Access to the webinar recording
  • Opening & closing meeting checklist (TMP-035)
  • Remote opening & closing meeting presentation templates (TMP-036)

To register for this webinar, please fill in the form below.

There are three other webinars on related topics:

  1. Audit team communication during a remote audit (free) – This webinar explains the requirements for audit team communication as defined in ISO 19011:2018. You will learn how what, and when to communicate with auditees, guides, and observers during an audit. The responsibilities of audit team members and the lead auditor with regard to audit team communication are covered in the webinar. You will learn how to use audit team meetings effectively during an audit. Best practices in using modern hardware and software technology to improve audit team communication are also covered, including tips on sharing audit trails in real-time.
  2. How to qualify your suppliers webinar ($129) – This webinar explains the weaknesses of traditional “ancient” supplier qualification tools and introduces some modern tools that will improve your supplier qualification process.
  3. Remote auditing techniques webinar ($129) – The remote auditing techniques webinar teaches you when to conduct remote audits and when to avoid remote auditing. You will also learn how to use the recording of remote audits to help you more effectively train new auditors.

About Your Instructor

Winter in VT 2024 150x150 Opening Meetings Webinar

Rob Packard is a regulatory consultant with ~25 years of experience in the medical device, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology industries. He is a graduate of UConn in Chemical Engineering. Rob was a senior manager at several medical device companies—including the President/CEO of a laparoscopic imaging company. His Quality Management System expertise covers all aspects of developing, training, implementing, and maintaining ISO 13485 and ISO 14971 certifications. From 2009 to 2012, he was a lead auditor and instructor for one of the largest Notified Bodies. Rob’s specialty is regulatory submissions for high-risk medical devices, such as implants and drug/device combination products for CE marking applications, Canadian medical device applications, and 510(k) submissions. The most favorite part of his job is training others. He can be reached via phone at 802.281.4381 or by email. You can also follow him on YouTube, LinkedIn, or Twitter.

Opening Meetings Webinar Read More »

Changes triggered by COVID19 in your quality system

3 Comments / Business Continuity Plan, Quality Management System, Remote Auditing / By

The 2020 global pandemic has changed life as we know it, but this article focuses on three crucial quality system changes triggered by COVID19.

3 things COVID19 changed 2 Changes triggered by COVID19 in your quality system

Last night my daughter Gracie mentioned that her teacher assigned an essay to write about three changes triggered by COVID19 in her life. The three things that she felt had changed the most were: 1) she goes to bed much later, and sleeps in every day; 2) her school is closed, and she only talks to her teacher twice per week via Zoom, and 3) she misses her friends. I know that her story is similar to my son Bailey who is in his Freshman year of college, and I know that my personal story is quite similar. Coincidentally, I started writing this article earlier this week about three significant-quality system changes triggered by COVID19:

  1. If you are going to conduct on-site audits, you need to ask about using personal protective equipment (PPE).
  2. There needs to be a greater focus on business continuity plans and robust supply chain monitoring.
  3. Remote audits are suddenly encouraged for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd-party audits.

Changes triggered by COVID19: #1 Use Face Masks

US FDA Issues EUAs

At the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic, the US FDA created several emergency use authorizations (EUA). The three EUA areas were IVD testing, ventilators, and face masks. The EUA for IVD testing is not surprising, because the FDA issues and EUA every time a new lethal and contagious virus emerges (e.g., Zika and Ebola). The EUA for ventilators was issued because the number of people with respiratory issues was expected to explode with the spread of the virus, and the supply chain for components of ventilators had already been disrupted by the initial spread of the virus in China. The EUA for face masks was issued because it is the second-best way to protect people from the virus, and existing infrastructure for face mask production could not possibly supply the entire world with face masks overnight.

Everyone in the World Gets a Face Mask

As soon as the EUA for face masks was issued, every regulatory consultant in the USA was inundated with urgent requests for help to complete EUA requests for masks. I also received similar requests for assistance with Canadian filings. The FDA did a great job of providing detailed information about the different types of face masks (i.e., face masks, surgical face masks, and N95 respirators). Testing companies created new website pages specifically for each of the different face mask tests, and every company with a sewing machine suddenly wanted to manufacture masks. I even read an article about an elderly woman making face masks for her entire family while she listened to The Beatles “HELP!” in the background.

Why aren’t you wearing your face mask?

Even after the world makes the first 7 billion face masks, not everyone will wear their face masks. Masks will protect us from touching our hands to our face–which spreads many germs in addition to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Masks will also keep us from coughing on other objects and people if we have the virus. Finally, face masks protect us from the small droplets that carry the virus from one person to the next. Even though there are obvious safety reasons for everyone in the world to wear a face mask, most people don’t want to wear a face mask. This is no different from the argument to wear a seat belt, and unless our government creates a law or temporary order requiring us to wear face masks, most people won’t bother to wear one.

Changes triggered by COVID19: Auditors need to wear face masks 

As a medical device auditor, I feel I must always follow the safety rules in every facility I visit. Lead auditors are supposed to contact the company ahead of time and ask about the safety policies as part of audit preparation and initiating the audit. I’m 6’6” (2.00m) in height, and my shoe size is 14. There is seldom gowning for me to wear that fits appropriately–especially in Southeast Asia. I squeeze into the garments, and they are uncomfortable and hot, but I wear the garments anyway. My job includes auditing clean rooms, and I can’t do my job without gowning up. By following the rules, I also eliminate the excuses for anyone in the facility I visit. Now that we have a global pandemic, you should be wearing a face mask in every medical device facility to protect yourself, people you work with, and users of medical devices. You should also consider carrying spare face masks with you to protect yourself on airplanes, in hotels, etc.

Changes triggered by COVID19: #2 Business Continuity Plans

Will business continuity plans be required now?

In addition to the cultural shift to wearing face masks, we will also need to make significant changes in our overall preparations for natural disasters, fires, and biological threats. Although there is no specific requirement for a business continuity plan in ISO 13485:2016, there are many places where an auditor can identify a requirement to maintain the effectiveness of a quality system (no exceptions):

  1. Clause 1, Scope
  2. Clause 4.1.1 & 4.1.3, General Quality System Requirements
  3. Clause 5.3, Quality Policy
  4. Clause 5.4.2, Quality management system planning
  5. Clause 5.6.3, Management Review Output
  6. Clause 6.1, Provision of resources
  7. Clause 8.1, General requirements for Measurement, analysis, and improvement
  8. Clause 8.2.4, Internal audit
  9. Clause 8.5.1, General Improvement

Although any of these clauses could potentially be referenced as a requirement for a business continuity plan, the last clause would generally be the most appropriate. This clause states, “The organization shall identify and implement any changes necessary to ensure and maintain the continued suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the quality management system…”. In this time of radical change, adding provisions to your business continuity plan for coping with a global biological threat seems obvious and urgently needed.

Suggested content for your business continuity plan

Sadly, the USA was probably better prepared for a disaster in the 1960s after the Cuban Missile Crisis than we are today. If you do not yet have a business continuity plan, or if you need suggestions for improving your plan, the following is a list of suggested items to include in your plan:

  1. Develop a plan for power outages, fires, floods, earthquakes, severe wind/tornadoes, hurricanes, workplace violence, and biological threats 
  2. Develop an emergency alert system to notify employees of any emergency
  3. Build emergency kits and store the kits for when they are needed
  4. Document your plan in multiple formats (virtual and physical) and distribute to all employees–including a social media plan
  5. Translate your plan into multiple languages for non-English speaking employees
  6. Develop a training program that addresses the various aspect of emergency preparation
  7. Practice your plan just like fire drills, so everyone is prepared and nobody panics

The Ready.gov website has many resources for the above items, including a series of “Ready Business Videos” and “Ready Business Toolkits.”

How to practice your business continuity plans

My sister is a teacher, and she is in the process of opening a new charter school in Maine. We were discussing her planning for the school, and the disruption of schools by the COVID19 pandemic has challenged all teachers to learn to use distance learning. My sister’s school focuses on teaching children about the environment, and she doesn’t like to spend lots of time on the computer. I was sharing some of the environmental studies my daughters are receiving via Zoom from their teachers. I suggested that she might want to pick one topic each week to teach via distance learning. The purpose of this would be to give her, and her students practice using distance learning for a variety of subjects. Therefore, when we experience another biological disaster, her students will already know precisely how to use distance learning to continue their education. My argument was that this routine use of distance learning would be a more effective preparation for emergencies than a once-per-month “fire drill.” Companies should use the same approach. Your company should create a schedule for practicing remote management meetings and working from home. This will ensure that systems are in place to keep your business running smoothly when disaster strikes again.

Changes triggered by COVID19: Expect regulators to require business continuity plans

The widespread shortage of face masks, ventilators, and other critical supplies needed during the COVID19 pandemic is going to result in new regulations requiring business continuity plans. This is a certainty born from the observation that every single medical device regulation we have resulted from severe public health threats. The COVID19 pandemic is the biggest global health crisis the world has experienced in 100 years. Therefore, we can expect corrective actions in the form of new regulations requiring companies to have a business continuity plan. Some regulators will act independently, but I would expect this also to be an action taken by the International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF). We can also expect there to be new laws requiring amendments to business continuity plans for public companies. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires public companies in the USA to have business continuity plans. Despite this requirement, many public companies have been ruined by the COVID19 pandemic. Therefore, we should expect amendments to these requirements and revisions to the international standard for business continuity planning (i.e., ISO 22301:2019). We should also expect to see new interest in becoming certified to this standard.

Changes triggered by COVID19: #3 Remote Auditing

What are certification bodies doing about surveillance audits and re-certification audits?

Most of the companies that had initial certification audits scheduled for the first quarter of 2020 were forced to reschedule their audits because the employees must work from home, and the certification bodies must conduct at least some of their audits on-site. The FDA was also forced to cancel all foreign inspections temporarily. However, companies that already have certification need surveillance audits and re-certification audits to maintain the validity of their quality system certificates. Therefore, certification bodies now have plans for conducting audits remotely. For companies that virtual medical device manufacturers, certification bodies can conduct full quality system audits remotely. However, manufacturers with production activities on-site are only able to conduct partial audits. The certification bodies must still conduct on-site audits, but they are being permitted six months to conduct an on-site audit to cover the gaps remaining from the partial remote audits. Prior to conducting the partial remote audits, certification bodies are sending out questionnaires to all of their clients to gather information about whether the manufacturers can support a remote audit and to what degree.

Second-party audits conducted remotely

Second-party audits, also known as supplier audits, have always been of interest for manufacturers to conduct remotely–mainly if the supplier is located overseas. The US FDA regulations do not require companies to conduct supplier audits. However, if there are quality problems with suppliers, you are expected to conduct a thorough investigation to identify the root cause of quality problems, in most cases, that require an on-site audit. However, if your suppliers are providing good quality and they are ISO 13485:2016 certified, then you probably are using this as a justification for not conducting on-site audits or at least reducing the frequency of those audits. Now that most people are not able to travel, or because the people you need to speak with are working from home, manufacturers are being forced to conduct remote audits. This has always been permitted, but the effectiveness of remote audits is often questioned. Supply chain disruptions are now a global issue that is impacting the safety and effectiveness of our hospitals, and regulators will expect you to improve the rigor of your supplier evaluations–including conducting more supplier audits. Therefore, establishing more effective procedures for remote supplier auditing is urgently needed.

Changes triggered by COVID19: We need to develop procedures for remote auditing

Although most first-party audits are conducted on-site, especially if conducted by employees of your company, we will still need to establish procedures for remote auditing for internal audits. Some of our client’s scheduled internal audits for April and May that they had to cancel because they were unable to access the records needed for the audit while they were working from home. In addition, most of the US States have implemented stay-at-home audits that prevent our team from traveling to our clients. This is forcing our team to develop more robust procedures for remote auditing. We needed to change our audit agendas to accommodate eight 90-minute audit sessions in four days, instead of conducting two full days of on-site auditing. We are also doing more preparation before the audit to allow the auditees time to scan paper records so that we can review those records remotely. Finally, we are experimenting with techniques for collaboration as an audit team so that multiple auditors can simultaneously audit a client and complete a full quality system audit more quickly without forcing any one person to work for longer than 90 minutes in front of a computer. We are still perfecting these new methods, but we are writing a series of articles on this topic. You can order the book from Amazon ($5 pre-order discount until August 28, 2020).

Thank you & Future Articles

Thank you for reading. This is the longest article we have published on our site since 2012. This article also kicks off a ten-part blog series specific to remote auditing techniques:

  1. Remote audit opening meeting – 4 changes – May 12
  2. Audit team communications – May 19
  3. Remote audit resources – software and hardware tools – May 26
  4. How to apply a risk-based auditing approach to audits and remote audits – June 2
  5. How to make a supplier questionnaire for remote auditing – June 25
  6. Remote audit duration less than 90 minutes – June 30
  7. Remote auditing work instruction – July 14
  8. Planning partial remote audits – July 21
  9. Remote audit invitations – 4 things to remember – August 4
  10. Training new audit team members and lead auditors – August 11

There are also five new live webinars planned on related topics:

  1. Opening Meetings Webinar (free) – May 14, 2020
  2. Audit team communication during a remote audit (free) – June 4, 2020
  3. How to qualify your supplier’s Webinar (pre-order by June 1) – June 25, 2020
  4. Remote auditing techniques webinar (pre-order by July 1) – July 16, 2020
  5. MDSAP Certification Body Interviews (free) – August 6, 2020

Changes triggered by COVID19 in your quality system Read More »

Implant Card Requirement – A New Requirement of EU 2017/745

2 Comments / CE Marking / By

This article breaks down and reviews the new implant card requirement as well as Article 18 of EU 2017/745.

We also have available for sale, SYS-037 Implant Card Procedure written to be Article 18 compliant of Regulation (EU) 2017/745, and includes;

  • SYS-037 A, Implant Card Procedure
  • FRM-044 Checklist for Information to be supplied to the patient with an implant
  • FRM-045 Implant Card Checklist for Article 18 Reg 2017-745
  • Native Slide Deck for Implant Card Webinar
  • Recording of the Implant Card Webinar

Implant Card Procedure Implant Card Requirement A New Requirement of EU 2017/745

Implant Card Requirement, a new requirement from Regulation (EU) 2017/745.

One of the new changes to the regulation is an introduction of a new requirement for implantable devices. These devices must now come with an “implant card” that contains information about the implanted medical device for the patient. The responsibility of the implementation of the new implant card rules lies with the manufacturer of the implantable device and the health institution as required by the EU member states.

What is an implantable device?

Before discussing the specifics of the implant card, we must first define what an implantable device is to determine if the implant card requirements apply to your device or devices. Article 2 Definitions, number 5 of Regulation (EU) 2017/745 defines and outlines what is considered an implantable device.

“(5) ‘implantable device’ means any device, including those that are partially or wholly absorbed, which is intended:

– to be introduced in the human body, or

– to replace an epithelial surface or the surface of the eye,

By clinical intervention and which is intended to remain in place after the procedure.

Any device intended to be partially introduced into the human body by clinical intervention and intended to remain in place after the procedure for at least 30 days shall also be deemed to be an implantable device; “

(Taken from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32017R0745 English version)

Is my device considered implantable?

Working with the above definition of an implantable device, you can now compare those requirements against your own devices to determine if they are considered to be an implantable device or not. This can be done by performing a gap analysis of the definition against your device.

Consider what your device is and ask yourself the following questions:

Is my device intended to be partially or wholly absorbed?

If the answer is no, then your device may not be an implantable one. If it is, then you must keep asking yourself questions until you can sufficiently determine your device’s status as implantable or not.

Is my device intended to be introduced in the human body?

No. Ok, that is fine, but is it intended to replace an epithelial surface or the surface of the eye?

To make an awful analogy of the process, it is almost like playing a game of Guess Who with your device. Instead of asking your device if they have red hair or a mustache, you have to ask your device questions like, “Are you intended to remain in place after the procedure?”.

The gap analysis is fine, but you also have to consider some other factors within the wording of the definition. Be careful navigating the specifics because the devil is in the details. In the definition, which is only eighty-nine words long, by the way, uses the word “intended” three different times.

That is important because the definition applies not only to some of the characteristics and uses of the device but also to the intent behind the device. Just because the device can be wholly introduced into the body does not mean that the device is ‘intended’ to be. A better example would be, by clinical intervention, can your device remain in place after the procedure? Could it, perhaps, but is it intended to be? Also, is it the intent of the device to be done so by clinical intervention?

Where to find the implant card requirement?

Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices is where the introduction of implant cards can be found. The definition of an implantable device is found in Article 2 Definitions, definition number 5.

Article 18- ‘Implant card and information to be supplied to the patient with an implanted device’ is where the implant card requirements can be found. This article contains three sections and four subsections pertaining to implant cards.

Article 18 Implant card requirement and information to be supplied to the patient with an implanted device

Below is article 18 in its entirety so that we can discuss it further in detail.

“1. The manufacturer of an implantable device shall provide together with the device the following:

(a) information allowing the identification of the device, including the device name, serial number, lot number, the UDI, the device model, as well as the name, address and the website of the manufacturer;

 

(b) any warnings, precautions or measures to be taken by the patient or a healthcare professional with regard to reciprocal interference with reasonably foreseeable external influences, medical examinations or environmental conditions;

 

(c) any information about the expected lifetime of the device and any necessary follow-up;

 

(d) any other information to ensure the safe use of the device by the patient, including the information in point (u) of Section 23.4 of Annex I.

The information referred to in the first subparagraph shall be provided, to make it available to the particular patient who has been implanted with the device, by any means that allow rapid access to that information and shall be stated in the language(s) determined by the concerned Member State. The information shall be written in a way that is readily understood by a layperson and shall be updated where appropriate. Updates of the information shall be made available to the patient via the website mentioned in point (a) of the first subparagraph.

Also, the manufacturer shall provide the information referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph on an implant card delivered with the device.

  1. The Member States shall require health institutions to make the information referred to in paragraph 1 available, by any means that allow rapid access to that information, to any patients who have been implanted with the device, together with the implant card, which shall bear their identity.
  2. The following implants shall be exempted from the obligations laid down in this Article: sutures, staples, dental fillings, dental braces, tooth crowns, screws, wedges, plates, wires, pins, clips, and connectors. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 115 to amend this list by adding other types of implants to it or by removing implants therefrom.”

(taken from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32017R0745)

Who does the implant card requirement apply to?

Section 1. of Article 18 states explicitly that it is the manufacturer who shall supply the information. Fortunately, it is also outlined what information needs to be included and some guidance on how to provide the information.

Take note, though, that the article states it “shall” be provided, “together with the device.” This means that merely having the information available or accessible such as a downloaded PDF on your website, is not sufficient to comply with section 1. Because that is not being supplied together with the device as outlined.

Section 2. of Article 18 applies to member states’ requirements of health care institutions.

Section 1 of Article 18

Section 1 is by far the most extended section of the article and outlines precisely what information must be provided with the implantable device. Not only is this information that must be provided, it specifically must be provided by the manufacturer. The subsections are broken down by topic and can be summarized as the information, warning, maintenance, and misc. Sections.

Section 1. Sub-Section A

This sub-section outlines the specific identifying information that must be provided. It is even specifically “information allowing the identification of the device.” For devices that are produced and manufactured compliant with other standards such as ISO 13485 or the QSR portion of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, a lot of this information is the same information that is required for traceability.

Besides the generic “information allowing the identification of the device,” the other specific information that ‘shall’ be provided is:

  • The name of the device,
  • The device serial number,
  • The lot number of the device,
  • The UDI,
  • The model of the device,
  • The name of the manufacturer,
  • The manufacturers address,
  • The manufacturers’ website.

They don’t just want your device’s driver’s license; they want the driver’s license, library card, passport, blood type, and favorite color. This is done for a purpose but also carries some implications on the maintenance actions of the manufacturer.

First such strict ID requirements mean that the device is traceable and identifiable. There should be absolutely no doubt about who made the device. In the event of an incident, that device should be traceable back to when and where the individual components were created and assembled into the final device. For traceability of an incident, tracking for corrective or preventive action, or just general inventory tracking this is the type of strict diligence that is expected when the end-user or patient is receiving medical care with an implantable device. There is no demonizing of this requirement. Yes, it is strict, but it is also just part of good housekeeping for a manufacturer in general. Only now it must be provided to the patient receiving care with the device as well.

What is implied is that the information provided along with the device is somewhat of a living document, and the information could vary a bit from patient to patient. Because things like lot numbers or any number of trackable metrics used with the UDI are included, the implant card information cannot be generically the same for each device but that it will have sections that are specific to individual devices. Sure this may initially create some logistical headaches for keeping track that the implant cards don’t get mixed up in situations where the devices are being manufactured, but this creates a level of accountability that is designed for the ultimate safety of the end patient.

Section 1. Sub-section B

Sub-section B contains the warning information of the device. The first part is pretty self-explanatory as meaning literally what is stated “any warnings” and “precautions”. It is the next part that I do not interpret literally. Where it says “measures to be taken by the patient or a healthcare professional with regard to reciprocal interference with reasonably foreseeable external influences, medical examinations or environmental conditions”.

If I were the manufacture of an implantable medical device, I would most definitely include measures to be taken by the patient as well as measures to be taken by a healthcare professional. There are a couple of spots that use the word ‘or’, and if it were me, I would read it ‘as well as’.

I say that for a few reasons. One is that without explicit clarification of a governing body as exactly what a silly little word like that is intended to me, this creates an area that is open for debate. Does that ‘or’ mean that at least one of those needs to be included and the rest can be excluded?

As one who likes to err on the side of caution, if you have the information available, why would you not provide it? By going above and beyond not only demonstrates your goodwill but also avoids hang-ups where an auditor might not agree with how you viewed the requirement, and you end up with a nonconformity, or in the same situation with an incident investigator. Ink is cheap; liabilities are expensive.

Section 1. Sub-section C, and Sub-section D.

These two subsections are relatively short and straight forward.

“(c)         any information about the expected lifetime of the device and any necessary follow-up;

How long can the user expect your device to last once it has been implanted?  I there any maintenance they should be performed? Perhaps once a year, a physician needs to double-check the device placement?

(d)         any other information to ensure the safe use of the device by the patient, including the information in point (u) of Section 23.4 of Annex I.”

The rest of Section 1. Of Article 18.

“The information referred to in the first subparagraph shall be provided, to make it available to the particular patient who has been implanted with the device, by any means that allow rapid access to that information and shall be stated in the language(s) determined by the concerned Member State. The information shall be written in a way that is readily understood by a layperson and shall be updated where appropriate. Updates of the information shall be made available to the patient via the website mentioned in point (a) of the first subparagraph.

Also, the manufacturer shall provide the information referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph on an implant card delivered with the device.”

(Taken from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32017R0745 English version)

At the end of this section, it provides a little bit more information about the purpose of the article but also lays out some guidelines for how to make the required information available.

I specifically mentioned earlier that having the information slapped on a website is not enough by itself. The text states, “any means that allow rapid access to that information”. Certainly, available on the internet is a means that allows rapid access, and it is if you have internet. Using a web-based approach like that is assuming that all the possible patients all have the technology and budget to reach the information. This means that every single possible patient needs a means to access the internet, and the money to pay for internet access. Also, being able to simply access the information rapidly isn’t necessarily providing the information “together with the device” as required.

You also need to have a conversation with your notified body and determine what languages are required by the member state in which your device is sold. It does not do the patient much good if they do not understand the language in which the information is being presented. It also needs to be presented in easy to understand terms, not in technical jargon.

Updates, unlike the initial presentation of information, needs to be included on your website. Specifically, the website that was included in the implant card given to the patient.

Section 2. of Article 18

Unlike what we saw in Section 1. Section 2. Outlines requirements for the health institutions and not the manufacturer. More specifically, Section 2. Requires member states to require health institutions to perform actions.

This section makes health institutions provide the same information that manufacturers had to provide to patients who have been implanted with a device, with the same stipulations as to how the information is provided. However, it also includes the health institution to include their identity on the implant card as well.

  1. Member States shall require health institutions to make the information referred to in paragraph 1 available, by any means that allow rapid access to that information, to any patients who have been implanted with the device, together with the implant card, which shall bear their identity.

(Taken from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32017R0745 English version)

Exemptions allowed in Article 18.

Section 3 of Article 18 is the list of exempted implants, exempted devices are:

  • Sutures
  • Staples
  • Dental Fillings
  • Dental Braces
  • Tooth Crowns
  • Screws
  • Wedges
  • Plates
  • Wires
  • Pins
  • Clips

This is not an exhaustive list and can change with time at the discretion of the Commission. What it has done is taken implanted devices and exempted some of the most common and widely used ones. Thankfully so too, imagine if every staple needed an implant card to be presented to the receiving patient with individual batch and identifying numbers. Then coordinate the effort with a health institution so that the card also bears their identification as well. This would quickly become exhaustive.

  1. The following implants shall be exempted from the obligations laid down in this Article: sutures, staples, dental fillings, dental braces, tooth crowns, screws, wedges, plates, wires, pins, clips, and connectors. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 115 to amend this list by adding other types of implants to it or by removing implants therefrom.”

(Taken from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32017R0745 English version)

Implant Card Requirement – A New Requirement of EU 2017/745 Read More »

Data Analysis Procedure (SYS-017)

Leave a Comment / By

The purpose of this 5-page data analysis procedure is to meet the requirements for monitoring and measurement of processes, data analysis and establishing quality objectives.

Your cart is empty

What is the Data Analysis Procedure (SYS-017)?

This procedure meets the requirements for clause 8.4 of ISO 13485:2016, but this procedure also addresses the requirements of clauses 8.2.5 and clause 5.4.1. The title of this procedure is actually, “Monitoring, Measurement and Data Analysis Procedure.” The procedure is in its third draft. There are no specific forms or lists associated with this procedure. The procedure is 5 pages in length.

The purpose of this procedure is to define the process for monitoring, measuring, and analysis of processes within your company’s quality management system. The procedure was updated to include references to the applicable ISO 13485:2016 clauses, and Matthew Walker added color coding (i.e., blue font) and symbols (i.e., #) to facilitate auditors identifying where the requirements for each sub-clause are found. The procedure also explains where the requirements for monitoring and measurement of processes can be found for each process.

Data Analysis Procedure Data Analysis Procedure (SYS 017)
SYS-017 - Monitoring, Measuring and Data Analysis Procedure
SYS-017 Monitoring, Measuring and Data Analysis Procedure - This procedure explains how the monitoring and measuring of each process (ISO 13485: 2016, Clause 8.2.5) shall be documented within procedures; how monitoring and measuring of product conformity (ISO 13485:2016, Clause 8.2.6) shall be conducted; how quality objectives (ISO 13485:2016, Clause 5.4.1) shall be established and maintained; how data analysis (ISO 13485:2016, Clause 8.4.1) of the above metrics shall be performed; and how the above information shall be communicated to top management (ISO 13485:2016, Clause 5.6) to actions may be taken when appropriate.
Price: $299.00

Please note: This product will be delivered to the email address provided in the shopping cart transaction. After the transaction is verified, please check your email for the download. 

When is the live webinar scheduled for this procedure bundle?

The live webinar is scheduled for Saturday, October 5, 2024 @ 9:30 a.m. ET. If you purchased the procedure before September 30, you will receive login information to participate in the live webinar. The webinar will be hosted on Streamyard.com. If you are unable to participate in the live webinar, please send us your questions in advance so that we can be sure to address your questions in the live webinar. You will be able to download the recording from the Dropbox folder after the live webinar and you can watch it as many times as needed.

What do you get when you purchase the Data Analysis Procedure?

Screen Capture of Dropbox Folder 1 Data Analysis Procedure (SYS 017)

Scope of the Data Analysis Procedure

The scope of the procedure explains how monitoring and measurement processes shall be documented for each process in your quality management system. The procedure also defines how quality objectives will be established and maintained. The procedure defines how data analysis shall be performed for the metrics for each process and the quality objectives, and finally the method for communicating the conclusions of the data analysis to top management are defined.

This procedure does not include the requirements for statistical techniques as required by 21 CFR 820.250. That requirement is addressed by our Statistical Techniques Procedure (SYS-022).Data Analysis Procedure Data Analysis Procedure (SYS 017)

 To view all available procedures click here

To review a sample Medical Device Academy procedure click below:

managment review sample SOP Data Analysis Procedure (SYS 017)

About Your Instructor

Winter in VT 2024 150x150 Data Analysis Procedure (SYS 017)

Rob Packard is a regulatory consultant with ~25 years of experience in the medical device, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology industries. He is a graduate of UConn in Chemical Engineering. Rob was a senior manager at several medical device companies—including the President/CEO of a laparoscopic imaging company. His Quality Management System expertise covers all aspects of developing, training, implementing, and maintaining ISO 13485 and ISO 14971 certifications. From 2009 to 2012, he was a lead auditor and instructor for one of the largest Notified Bodies. Rob’s specialty is regulatory submissions for high-risk medical devices, such as implants and drug/device combination products for CE marking applications, Canadian medical device applications, and 510k submissions. The most favorite part of his job is training others. He can be reached via phone at +1.802.281.4381 or by email. You can also follow him on YouTube, LinkedIn, or Instagram.

Data Analysis Procedure (SYS-017) Read More »

PMCF Mobile App Webinar

Leave a Comment / By

Andaman7 was the guest presenter of this webinar on PMCF mobile app use for clinical data collection required for medical device CE Marking.

Description of the PMCF Mobile App Webinar

The Andaman7 webinar was hosted live by Rob Packard on Thursday, February 27, 2020 with two different live webinar times to accommodate our clients from Europe and the USA. Both sessions were recorded and links for downloading the recordings are available if you complete the form below. David Levesque was the guest speaker from Andaman7. He explained how Andaman7 works, and how it can be used to gather patient-reported outcomes for the purpose of PMCF studies. If you complete the registration form below, you will receive a link to the recording and a copy of the slide deck. Registration is free if you enter a question into the form. Andaman7 will also receive your question by email. If you want Andaman7 to contact you directly, please check the appropriate box.

Why no company should provide a justification for no PMCF

Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex II(6.2d) states that your CE technical documentation shall include, “the PMCF plan and PMCF evaluation report referred to in Part B of Annex XIV or a justification why a PMCF is not applicable.” Despite this statement, you must still provide a PMCF plan as part of your technical documentation. You also are required to gather clinical data on your own device or an equivalent device. Demonstrating “equivalence” is extremely difficult under the new EU regulations. Therefore, if a clinical study was not conducted for your device, and your device is already CE Marked, a PMCF study is the only way for you to collect clinical data. For Class IIb implants and Class III devices, clinical investigations are required, and Notified Bodies are expecting a PMCF study to be conducted for all high-risk products that are currently CE Marked.

How to conduct a PMCF study

The following steps are needed to conduct a PMCF study:

  1. Identify residual risks associated with your device
  2. Create a PMCF protocol to gather data for each residual risk
  3. Identify a principal investigator(s) and clinical site(s) for your PMCF study
  4. Validate methods for collecting PMCF data in accordance with your protocol via: paper case record forms, electronic data capture software, or eSource.
  5. Statistical analysis of PMCF data and generation of a PMCF report

Using PMCF Mobile App for collecting PMCF data

Andaman7 is a software app designed to collect patient-reported outcomes (PRO). The company converts your protocol into a form for data collection by their mobile app. Clinicians and patients can download the app and enter data into the mobile app, but the software enables patients to own the data and take it with them. Andaman7 is ideally suited for gathering PMCF data, because it provides a mechanism for encouraging patient follow-up and collecting PMCF data–even when patients move or transfer to a new physician. The app also provides a vehicle to efficiently communicate advisory notices to users, and you can collect data more efficiently for complaints and adverse events.

Other resources for PMCF

If you are interested in contacting Andaman7 directly, please try their contact us webpage. If you need additional help with CE Marking requirements, please review our 8-part webinar series on the new medical device European regulations and our Post-Market Surveillance Procedure (SYS-019).

About Your Instructor

Winter in VT 2024 150x150 PMCF Mobile App Webinar

Rob Packard is a regulatory consultant with ~25 years of experience in the medical device, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology industries. He is a graduate of UConn in Chemical Engineering. Rob was a senior manager at several medical device companies—including the President/CEO of a laparoscopic imaging company. His Quality Management System expertise covers all aspects of developing, training, implementing, and maintaining ISO 13485 and ISO 14971 certifications. From 2009 to 2012, he was a lead auditor and instructor for one of the largest Notified Bodies. Rob’s specialty is regulatory submissions for high-risk medical devices, such as implants and drug/device combination products for CE marking applications, Canadian medical device applications, and 510(k) submissions. The most favorite part of his job is training others. He can be reached via phone at 802.281.4381 or by email. You can also follow him on YouTube, LinkedIn, or Twitter.

PMCF Mobile App Webinar Read More »

Scroll to Top