The Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
UL - Underwriters Laboratories - Health Sciences
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > Medical Devices, Medical Information Technology, Medical Software and Health Informatics > Medical Device Related Standards > ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems
Forum Username

Elsmar Cove Forum Visitor Notice(s)

Wooden Line

Trusting ISO 13485 Certification of a Supplier... A Sad Story - Page 15


Elsmar XML RSS Feed
Elsmar Cove Forum RSS Feed

Monitor the Elsmar Forum
Sponsor Links




Courtesy Quick Links


Links that Cove visitors will find useful in your quest for knowledge:

International Standards Bodies - World Wide Standards Bodies

ASQ - American Society for Quality

International Standards Organization - ISO Standards and Information

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


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


Related Topic Tags
fda (food and drug administration), fda form 483 or warning letter, iso 13485 - medical device qms, medical device company or industry
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  Post Number #113  
Old 9th March 2015, 12:23 PM
gramaley

 
 
Total Posts: 85
Re: Trusting ISO 13485 Certification of a Supplier... A Sad Story

Canada has the same population and economic GDP as Italy. Italy has the CE mark, and therefore access to all medical device manufacturers that have sought a CE mark. It is not the size of the country that determines the number of manufacturers that provide products to that country (with the exception of the USA ), but the openness of the economy to overseas manufacturers seeking to sell there.

In his regard, Saudi Arabia, Australia, and many other countries allow for accepting a wider range of approaches to demonstrating safety and effectiveness. They need medical devices, badly (like all nations), and because smaller nations are seriously handicapped in one significant way (they do not have the ability to make all the devices they need), 98% to 99% of devices are imported from overseas (Australia and smaller size economies), so they must aggressively look at sensible, broadly used programs to regulate medical devices.

Last edited by gramaley; 9th March 2015 at 12:28 PM.

Sponsored Links
  Post Number #114  
Old 9th March 2015, 01:11 PM
gramaley

 
 
Total Posts: 85
Re: Trusting ISO 13485 Certification of a Supplier... A Sad Story

Thank you for this detailed history Sidney; I was questioned somewhat severely by someone at an IAF meeting in Rio, after some organization had a problem with a medical device, and the company was ISO 13485 certified. As you point out, and as we all know, Quality Managements Systems are an important part of product quality, but they cannot be fully relied on, alone, to address all aspects of medical device safety and effectiveness.

I was talking with a former FDA official last week about the FDA "Certificate to Foreign Government" (CTFG)and how they state:

"The manufacturing plan(s) in which the product(s) s produced is subject to periodic inspections. The last such inspection showed that the plant(s), at that time, appeared to be in substantial compliance with current good manufacturing practice requirements for the product(s) listed above".


I explained that the (CTFGs) have been viewed as FDA Quality System Certificates, because the GMP referred to infers that the FDA Quality System was operating "substantially in compliance" at the time of the inspection.

The CABs, like FDA, really cannot be there every day, and anything can happen after they leave, which could throw a wrench in the system, but a good QMS will catch problems that will inevitably arise and resolve them through a good feedback and CAPA system. I usually tell people, at the very least, I like to know a company has a QMS, so I can talk about CAPA with them, if something goes bad, and we can dig down to the root cause. Quality Managers know CAPA well. Production managers, sales and even engineers, do not always go far enough.

It has been my experience with FDA, they are very focused on the "attitude" of the Quality Department and Management toward the common goal of providing safe products, and reporting problems quickly. "Attitude" energizes reactions when problems occurs, and so bad attitudes will certainly present a serious concern to FDA. Genuinely good attitudes realize we are on the same team.


So feel it is wrong to characterize the CABs and Accreditation system as a failure, because it cannot succeed 100% of the time from eliminating problems occurring in the market. FDA doesn't claim their own inspections should be trusted so much. What we do know, is that proper vigilance from within and from outside CABs, and up the entire accreditation chain, is ideal.

I have mentioned in this or other posts, how shocked I was to hear so many reports from the field, after the IAF program went into effect Fall 2012, of the other regulatory audits from CABs and Canadian CMDCAS being improved. We had no intention on affecting these other regulatory audits. It happened because CE and CMDCAS auditors were required to meet the IAF requirements during the very same combined audits.

Before the IAF program went into effect, the softer (vague competency “requirements” for CE and CMDCAS CABs) created a wider range of variability in the competency of the audit teams. I learned that some CMDCAS and CE audits had to be entirely re-planned after fall 2012, since the audit teams for CMDCAS and CE didn’t have competent enough auditors to meet the newer, and more specific requirements of IAF MD9.

The requirements were not meant to be more difficult, but they eliminated use of auditors that lacked sufficient ISO 13485 auditor competency and experience, which most would have expected to exist under ISO 13485 CMDCAS and CE (Annex II and Annex V) type audits. This was not necessarily a widespread problem, but it did happen.

It happened this way; Since the Accreditation Assessors were going to be checking on these new IAF competency requirements, ANNUALLY, the CABs, wanting to maintain their international accreditation, had to adapt to the IAF requirements quickly for their upcoming combined audits, or risk losing their international accreditation for ISO 13485.

The new IAF Accreditation requirements were designed to be effective conformity assessment tools, with improved clarity of the specified requirements. The more loosely stated competency requirements that had been enforced by Notifying Authorities couldn't be used to excuse CABs from such variability as existed in their competency requirements, which I noted in their "designated authority handbook"; You cannot assess things that are not specific enough to assess. You cannot have "soft" requirements, and then expect to issue nonconformities. I have seen these things appearing now in MDSAP requirements for competency of Regulator assessors, and this creates inconsistency among those that use "soft requirements". It is also what has been identified as creating the variability among regulators performing notification activities in Europe. In fact the German regulators in 2008 propose the regulators consider using IAF created standard ISO 17021, to help align the "Notification" activities. But what about the ISO 17011 requirements for the Notifying Authorities themselves???

So we merely interpreted the intents, based on standard practices of 4 major notified bodies, who also provided ISO and CMDCAS audits. I would compare this to tightening a tolerance by providing a tolerance level. Yes, tolerance does provide variability, but we understand that risks of devices are afforded tolerances as well, even in the regulated QMS (e.g. Design Controls are exempt for lower risk devices for FDA, Health Canada and EU Directives).

What we have now, are more specific requirements for ABs and CABs, that are being enforced through IAF assessments of ABs and their regional group members, improved AB assessments of CABs, which are inculcated into the entire chain ANNUAL assessments and additional assessments when changes to a new Main Technical Area Scope (per IAF MD9 Annex A), so that our ISO 13485 audits are more consistent, across the globe.

As these improved assessments are also frequent (6 to 27 times as frequent as the FDA inspections performed overseas if you belief the 2008 GAO report data is still relevant) this certainly increases the number of audits that show “substantial compliance to the ISO 13485 QMS standard. Is it perfect? Is anything?

Would we dare say we can eliminate crime by having enough police officers? Would we argue that when a murder, rape, or theft occurs, law enforcement has failed us? Keep in mind, the US FDA is indeed a law enforcement agency, and they conduct many “for cause” inspections when things go bad. Had they been in the factory every other year, as mandated by Congress; would we have a whole lot less “for cause” FDA inspections? Are we willing to pay for 5X more FDA investigators and their international travel, hiring of local interpreters, etc? Do we need to suddenly move toward that opposite extreme? Most medical devices really couldn’t cause a safety risk (serious injury or death). Many are safer than the tools you buy at home depot, but certainly provide for billions of meaningful treatments.

Last edited by gramaley; 9th March 2015 at 01:22 PM.
Sponsored Links

  Post Number #115  
Old 9th March 2015, 04:57 PM
MIREGMGR

 
 
Total Posts: 3,685
Re: Trusting ISO 13485 Certification of a Supplier... A Sad Story

Quote:
MDSAP, like the IAF program, will remain voluntary worldwide, because they are expensive. Regulators that make them mandatory may find a terrible loss of access to medical devices (...)
In a couple of conversations with Kim Trautman regarding my employer's upcoming participation in MDSAP, I gathered that MDSAP is intended by FDA, or at least the pro-harmonization faction in FDA and among certain Congressional staffers, to be mandatory at FDA. That is, MDSAP would entirely replace FDA's QSIT 1 and 2 inspections, and FDA's own inspectors would do only problem followup, For Cause, PMA and special inspections.

Of course, perhaps I misunderstood.

In any case, I doubt if USA would lose access to very many medical devices of consequence by imposing a quality system requirement that would cost a few thousand dollars a year more than now. The USA market is far too economically important to most substantial medical device companies.
  Post Number #116  
Old 9th March 2015, 08:04 PM
gramaley

 
 
Total Posts: 85
Re: Trusting ISO 13485 Certification of a Supplier... A Sad Story

Surely that would have to be the direction FDA would need to push the Cures Act. I can't imagine them making another failed 3rd party program.
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > Medical Devices, Medical Information Technology, Medical Software and Health Informatics > Medical Device Related Standards > ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems

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
Smilies 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
Certification services for ISO 13485, CMDCAS 13485, and CE Markings sabrina.qa Canada Medical Device Regulations 18 10th June 2016 09:46 AM
Trusting Gage Manufacturer Calibration Certifications Michael_M General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 3 13th March 2014 11:25 AM
ISO 13485 vs FDA Requirement question about when ISO 13485 Certification is Required rvanelli ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4 15th January 2014 03:05 PM
Supplier Certification for ISO 13485 danush ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 7 2nd April 2012 06:15 PM
What is a QC story? How to prepare a QC Story? dnarendran Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 3 30th September 2008 07:49 AM



The time now is 01:14 PM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.


 
 


NOTE: This forum uses "Cookies" - A Peachfarm Internet Property