The Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums
Design Dossier up to date required - Audit finding - CE Marking
UL - Underwriters Laboratories - Health Sciences
Design Dossier up to date required - Audit finding - CE Marking
Design Dossier up to date required - Audit finding - CE Marking
Design Dossier up to date required - Audit finding - CE Marking
Design Dossier up to date required - Audit finding - CE Marking
Design Dossier up to date required - Audit finding - CE Marking
Design Dossier up to date required - Audit finding - CE Marking
Design Dossier up to date required - Audit finding - CE Marking
Design Dossier up to date required - Audit finding - CE Marking
Design Dossier up to date required - Audit finding - CE Marking
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > > >
Forum Username

Elsmar Cove Forum Visitor Notice(s)

Wooden Line

Design Dossier up to date required - Audit finding - CE Marking


Monitor the Elsmar Forum
Sponsor Links




Courtesy Quick Links


Links Elsmar Cove visitors will find useful in the quest for knowledge and support:

Jennifer Kirley's
Conway Business Services


Howard's
International Quality Services


Marcelo Antunes'
SQR Consulting, and
Medical Devices Expert Forum


Bob Doering
Bob Doering's Blogs and,
Correct SPC - Precision Machining


Ajit Basrur
Claritas Consulting, LLC



International Standards Bodies - World Wide Standards Bodies

AIAG - Automotive Industry Action Group

ASQ - American Society for Quality

International Organization for Standardization - ISO Standards and Information

NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook

IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors

SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers

Quality Digest

IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology


Some Related Topic Tags
audits and auditing, IEC 60601, design and development, ce mark and ce marking, iec 60601 - medical electrical equipment
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Content Display Modes
  Post Number #1  
Old 1st April 2009, 09:00 PM
revolution_2006

 
 
Total Posts: 5
Please Help! Design Dossier up to date required - Audit finding - CE Marking

During an audit, our notified body indicated that there would be a deviation noted for not keeping the design dossier up to date, specifically with respect to including a technical assessment for conformity to 60601-1-6 and 60601-1-4. The device was developed prior to 60601-1-6, yet there seems to be an expectation that the design dossier needs to be updated to reflect compliance to these standards, even though it is currently CE marked (expires January 2010).
Does anyone have any guidance or information regarding retroactive requirements to be compliant to a voluntary standard or experience with updating design dossiers as new standards become available?

Thank you for your help.

Sponsored Links
  Post Number #2  
Old 1st April 2009, 09:46 PM
Al Rosen's Avatar
Al Rosen

 
 
Total Posts: 3,628
Re: Design Dossier up to date required

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by revolution_2006 View Post

During an audit, our notified body indicated that there would be a deviation noted for not keeping the design dossier up to date, specifically with respect to including a technical assessment for conformity to 60601-1-6 and 60601-1-4. The device was developed prior to 60601-1-6, yet there seems to be an expectation that the design dossier needs to be updated to reflect compliance to these standards, even though it is currently CE marked (expires January 2010).
Does anyone have any guidance or information regarding retroactive requirements to be compliant to a voluntary standard or experience with updating design dossiers as new standards become available?

Thank you for your help.
From the MDD Annex 1 Essential Requirements, General requirements
Quote:
2. The solutions adopted by the manufacturer for the design and construction of the devices must conform to
safety principles, taking account of the generally acknowledged state of the art.
Also discussed in this thread.

Last edited by Al Rosen; 1st April 2009 at 09:51 PM.
Thanks to Al Rosen for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  Post Number #3  
Old 2nd April 2009, 01:28 AM
MIREGMGR

 
 
Total Posts: 3,685
Re: Design Dossier up to date required

Our understanding is that a Design Dossier is not a static document that can remain in place unmaintained for a period of time, and still remain valid.

Rather, it requires vigilant maintenance, because if a standard newly becomes applicable to the covered product(s) and the Design Dossier is not updated to either indicate conformance to that newly applicable standard or to provide a rationale for why not, the Design Dossier is nonconformant.

Ditto for CE Declarations of Conformance, and for Technical Files.

We've just been contacted by one of our largest customers in regard to a recent EN standard. Our customer has their own standards vigilance, and they expect us to notify them of our compliance actions...including an updated CE Declaration of Conformance...to close their vendor-supervision loop.

Not that we would go there, but theoretically if we were to tell them to take a hike, our sales to their European unit would stop, and our top-level relationship with them would be damaged. They expect us to be conformant.

That's how it works. Regulatory compliance is a process, not an event.
Thanks to MIREGMGR for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  Post Number #4  
Old 2nd April 2009, 10:43 PM
Roland Cooke

 
 
Total Posts: 614
Re: Design Dossier up to date required - Audit finding - CE Marking

It's both a snapshot in time (the device and supporting documentation were compliant at the time of submission) and also evidence that the requirement to maintain that compliance, as the clinical, technical and regulatory environments inevitably evolves over time, has been met.

So you need strong revision control.

I would be wary of having an "annual update" or similar. The supporting documentation needs to be updated as required.

Make sure you have a system for post-market feedback. The NB-MEDs and MEDDEV documents are valuable sources of guidance, as is GHTF.
Attached Files: 1. Scan for viruses before opening, 2. Please report any 'bad' files by Reporting this post, 3. Use at your Own Risk.
File Type: pdf MEDDEV Post Market Clinical Follow-Up.pdf (78.0 KB, 117 views)

Last edited by Roland Cooke; 4th April 2009 at 02:51 PM. Reason: clarity, typos
Thank You to Roland Cooke for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  Post Number #5  
Old 3rd April 2009, 08:17 PM
revolution_2006

 
 
Total Posts: 5
Re: Design Dossier up to date required - Audit finding - CE Marking

Thank you all for your responses. While I understand that the design dossier needs to be updated to reflect the current device, since as revised labeling, updated post-market information and the risk management/ assessments, the question I still have remains as to whether new tests have to be performed on an existing device that was designed before the standards were available.

For example, if the "voluntary standards" are a means to demonstrate compliance to the essential requirements, and the device currently has the CE mark, which means it does comply with the ER, then why would it no longer comply with the ER if a new standard is released and the essential requirements haven't changed. This question is based on the following quote from the europa web site:
Compliance with harmonised standards, of which the reference numbers have been published in the Official Journal and which have been transposed into national standards, provides presumption of conformity to the corresponding essential requirements of the EC directives. Compliance with harmonised standards remains voluntary, and manufacturers are free to choose any other technical solution that provides compliance with the essential requirements. In a number of cases compliance with harmonised standards also increases the options for conformity assessment procedures.
Since the device is currently approved and on the market, which means that comformity to the ER is established, then why would new tests have to be performed because a new harmonized standard is released? For instance, if the alarms only had one harmonic in the audible alarm, then 60601-1-8 is released and it requires 4 harmonics, then does the existing, approved and marketed device have to be redesigned to comply with the standard, even if no issues were identified since it has been marketed?

I'm sorry for the long-winded questions, but it just seems to me that if the device complies with the ER, the solutions adopted to comply are sufficient, then the device should not have to be redeisgned as new standards are released.
In a releated question, when 60601-1 3rd edition is harmonized, does this mean that every currently marketed medical device will have to be evaluated, redesigned or otherwise assessed to continue to be marketed?


Thanks again for your valuable input and viewpoints.
  Post Number #6  
Old 3rd April 2009, 08:51 PM
Roland Cooke

 
 
Total Posts: 614
Re: Design Dossier up to date required - Audit finding - CE Marking

As always, the answer is...it depends.


Notified Bodies' approach to harmonised standards is pretty much set. If you don't meet them, you need a damn good reason why.

So if a standard gets revised, you need to demonstrate that you not only are aware of the change, but that you have assessed the impact on your product.

If you can do a Gap Analysis that legitimately shows that the changes are either only cosmetic, or that the gap can be closed via literature review, then you might well be able to get away without doing additional laboratory tests.


But the misconception you have is that because something was originally approved as safe and effective, that it will always remain so. After all, asbestos was popular once upon a time. But our knowledge improved over time, and now asbestos is treated with extreme caution.

I have no idea about your warning alarms example. But I imagine the standard changed because there had been problems, albeit maybe not with your product.

Now whether or not you need to redesign your product, quarantine old inventory, and perhaps even recall old issued product....well it depends. At the very least you will need to justify why you are not doing some or all of those things.
Thanks to Roland Cooke for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  Post Number #7  
Old 4th April 2009, 02:06 AM
MIREGMGR

 
 
Total Posts: 3,685
Re: Design Dossier up to date required - Audit finding - CE Marking

Certainly some of us agree with you that it's a hassle to adapt to a regulatory context in which when a new rule is published and adopted, previously conformant products that were long ago "finished" and given over to Marketing and Production all have to be reviewed and maybe redesigned.

In the medical devices area, the FDA historically has mostly not operated according to such a principle. In regard to 510(k)s, for instance, a premarket notification acceptance once granted has (generally) remained valid indefinitely, irrespective of subsequent regulatory changes that are applicable to new comparable devices. The generally used term is "grandfathering", a well-worn concept in regulatory law.

It's particularly aggravating when the newly introduced standard is poorly drafted with a broader scope than its technical language correctly handles. EN 13795, recently published, has that problem. Its scope clearly encompasses all surgical drapes, including non-patient-contact equipment covers. Its technical language, though, assumes patient contact applications, and assumes woven or non-woven fabric materials in regard to the specifically directed test methods...providing no obvious way to establish compliance for disposable-plastic-film devices, which are by far the most common technology worldwide for non-patient-contact equipment covers in the sterile field, and are otherwise quite broadly accepted at the clinical level and regulation-wise in Europe.

One of my current problems is figuring out how to maximize and then state our conformance position to 13795 for the hundreds of products we make to which it applies, given this poor performance by the standard's drafters.

But that's how the EU system works: no grandfathering--both old and new standards are applicable.
Thanks to MIREGMGR for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > > >

Bookmarks



Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors (Members) and 1 Unregistered Guest Visitors)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Forum Search
Display Modes Rate Thread Content
Rate Thread Content:

Forum Posting Settings
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Emoticons are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Discussion Threads
Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote
What to expect in a Design Dossier Review for CE Marking by a Notified Body AB2415 CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 3 5th December 2014 06:58 PM
Required Knee Prosthesis Class III Tests and Design Dossier burcinerek EU Medical Device Regulations 2 8th November 2013 01:25 PM
CE Marking: Date of Manufacture or Date of Shipment Asherlee EU Medical Device Regulations 1 17th June 2009 03:14 AM
No Formal Design Process - Audit Finding - Help with Section 7.3 of ISO 9001:2008 KENWALTON123 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 24 1st May 2009 11:27 PM
TS16949 Audit Finding to 7.5.2 - Required Signatures dbzman IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 15 30th January 2009 03:13 PM



The time now is 03:23 AM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.



Misc. Internal Links


NOTE: This forum uses "Cookies"
The Elsmar Cove web site and all content is owned by Rabbithash Corp. as of 1 MAY 2018.
Unlike Facebook and other properties such as Linkedin, We don't buy, sell, or "share" visitor information. Never have, Never will...
GDPR Compliant since 1996, keeping Marc's vision alive!