Confused - Medical Device Reports and Corrections/Removals

A

abpmom2

#1
All,

Bear with me please as I'm new to the quality assurance field. I apologize for the length, but I'm very confused over the relationship between reports of corrections and removals and MDRs.

Specifically, the regulation states that a manufacturer must report corrections/removals if these corrections were taken to reduce a risk to health. "risk to health" is defined as follows:

(1) A reasonable probability that use of, or exposure to, the product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death; or
(2) That use of, or exposure to, the product may cause temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences, or an outcome where the probability of serious adverse health consequences is remote.

Now - re: section 803. A manufacturer is required to submit an MDR report if the device may have caused/contributed to death OR if the device malfunctioned and this malfunction would be likely to contribute to or cause death or serious injury if the malfunction were to recur. In this case, we're talking about "serious injury" which is defined as life threatening, permanent impairment/damage to a body function/structure, or necessitates medical/surgical intervention to prevent such a permanent injury.

Here's where I struggle. I receive a customer complaint on a malfunction and perform a health hazard assessment. The result of this health hazard assessment is that the type of injury the malfunction could potentially cause is "temporary or reversible injury requiring medical intervention" (such as administration of additional medications or antibiotic) - and that the likelihood of harm is either rare or unlikely due to standards of clinical practice, how detectible the malfunction is, amongst other considerations. In the end we determine that the risk level is "acceptable".

In the meantime, an engineering change request has been submitted for the malfunction. Engineering decides to go ahead and fix the malfunction in an upcoming product release. Now, all of a sudden, they evaluate the correction for reportability under 806 and given the difference in definitions of injury in the two sections, it comes out that we should report the correction under 806! i.e., The malfunction won't cause SERIOUS injury as defined under 803, but it does pose a "risk to health" as defined under section 806.

Of course, we never submitted an MDR for the malfunction because it wasn't reportable under 803. Should we submit an MDR for the complaint in this case? If so, it will now be late because the correction was initiated months later.

Is there any relationship between 806/803 reporting other than the fact that when you submit an 803 you can also submit the 806 correction report at the same time on the same form? Or, to word it differently, do you have to have an MDR for every report of correction and removal? Are we doing something inherently wrong here?

I'm thinking that if we determined that the malfunction had an 'acceptable' risk level that we are saying there is no risk to health and therefore the correction should not be evaluated for 806 repotability?

Thoughts, advice would be so appreciated!

Thanks,
abpmom2
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
A

Andrea.Ruth

#2
No need to be confused. But I think you need to step back and analyze the situation a little more.

I have seen this sort of situation before a couple of times, but it is unusual. I do have a question for you. Why was the engineering change classified as a correction? It would only be a correction if units in the field were changed. If not, then I think the exemption at 21 CFR 806.1(b)(1) would apply.

But for discussion, lets assume that the products in the field were changed, and an evaluation under 806 was necessary. This would be separate and independent of your complaint evaluation under 803. It is appropriate to do both evaluations. I would not use the 803 evaluation as justification for not evaluating under 806.

As for the forms being connected and similar, you do not need to file an MDR for every correction/removal, and not every MDR will need a correction/removal; they are linked but independent.
 
M

MIREGMGR

#3
We make a lot of 510(k)ed devices, but we've never had a change to a device because of a risk of patient harm. So, if I may ask a possibly related question:

FDA guidance K97-1 says "...manufacturers need to submit a new 510(k) only when a change, or the sum of the incremental changes exceeds the §807.81(a)(3) threshold, 'could significantly affect the safety or effectiveness of the device.'" (http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ode/510kmod.html)

The FDA doesn't provide any explicit clarification of their intent regarding 803 and 806. Our internal belief is that any 510(k)ed-device change that is made to address a risk identified via an incident or internal analysis that leads to either an 806 report or an 803 report, should get a 510(k) Special.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Weiner Dog

Med Device Consultant
#4
21 CFR 803 (MDR) supplements 21 CFR 820 (QSR) (actually 21 CFR 820.198- complaints). Whereas, 21 CFR 806 (CAR) supplements 21 CFR 7 (Voluntary Recalls).

The data from both (inter-twined with product listings) are used by FDA for post market surveillance trending- risk based (such as pertaining to the old health hazards associated with the silicone breast implants some years ago).

Even though they may use the same terms and are "risk based", not all 21 CFR 806.10 corrections and removals come about from 21 CFR 803 MDR complaint investigations/ CAPA's (and visa versa).

During the complaint/ MDR investigation (based upon risk analysis/ risk management), one feels that a correction or removal (i.e. recall) is needed, then 806.10 applies. In other instances, if individual internal or external nonconformances (such as a MDR complaint)/CAPA's or through CAPA source data analysis, there is a need to have a product correction or removal (i.e. a correction not corrective or preventive action), then 806 applies. If it is determined that the correction or removal was conducted due to a risk to health, then the CAR has to be reported to FDA within 10 working days per 21 CFR 806.10.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
J Confused about application of ISO 13485 - Manufacturer of Medical Equipment & Device ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 14
C CAP for Medical Device Class Is product - Slightly confused - ISO 13485 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
D Essential performance, accompanying documents....confused IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 4
D Software as risk control - Confused on one aspect of IEC 62304 IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 20
E European Weld Callouts - Confused with the "/C" and the "a2" portions Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 7
R Still confused on OPRP and CCP in an ISO 22000 Catering Business Food Safety - ISO 22000, HACCP (21 CFR 120) 3
S Pressure from Directors - confused! ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 6
R ISO 9001 Implementation in the Bus/Coach Industry - Confused and Help needed ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 6
A Confused about Document Levels and Quality Manual ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
T TS 16949 Process Audit Help - Confused Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 8
K So confused with AQL - How does AQL (Acceptable Quality Level) fit with my company AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 7
N ISO 9001 Implementation - I am still confused on where to start ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 19
J Certification Audit - Confused Newbie Questions ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 15
T Confused on Work Instruction Requirements ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 10
C Confused with 7.4 Purchasing - We provide a "service" which is our "product" ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
M Confused about Writing Procedures ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
B Gage R&R Spreadsheet Results - Confused as to what the results mean Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 28
B IEC 60601-1: EMC problems: Confused about 915MHz ISM band in Europe IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 3
Q Confused: IEC 60601-1-2:YYYY and Required Compliance Dates IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 4
S Confused: Accreditation / Certification? General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 13
K An MR (Management Representative) who's as confused as he* Career and Occupation Discussions 14
M Confused about Control Plan and PFMEA Retention Period Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 2
K Developing a PFMEA - Confused about Potential Failure modes FMEA and Control Plans 7
H Confused over the notion of "offline (engineering) analysis" Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 3
I Confused on PPAP re-submission - Help on PSW (Part Submission Warrant) APQP and PPAP 3
T Confused by chapter numbering scheme in new standard (IEC EN-60601-2-37:2007) IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 1
Wes Bucey FWIW: FDA confused? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 3
M Confused about measurement of software - Section 7.6 of ISO 9001 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 6
WCHorn ISO/IEC 17025 Registrars - I'm confused about "accredited" registrars for ISO 17025 ISO 17025 related Discussions 18
M Predictive Maintenance - Confused about what can be considered predictive maintenance IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 8
W Confused under what ISO 9001 clause would I place my Quality Process? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
M Totally confused over changes to issue numbers - Quality & procedures manuals Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 12
J Confused about Calibration Tolerances of Plug Gauge, Ring Gauge & Snap Gauge General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 4
S PPM vs. DPMO - Confused on how to use Six Sigma 2
A Still Confused About "Controlling Suppliers Records" AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 3
Q Confused about the machine capability index Cmk Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 1
C Confused with Regression Analysis - What about the P-value? Six Sigma 2
B I am confused, which Cmk value should I take and use? Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 6
N Confused by calibration concepts - Seeking help with the basics General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 9
D Confused about registration scope - Engine accessories supplier IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
K Level 1, Level 2 Very Confused ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 13
D Confused over product=service=transport Service Industry Specific Topics 2
S Confused about the TS 16949 Deadline - Presumably a Big 3 mandate? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
D Strategies for Going In Blind - My employer is probably confused why I'm here Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 11
W I'm confused about the term 'processes' in the revised (2000) ISO 9001 standard ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 22
Marc NIST Traceability Numbers - Confused Yet? General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 5
K 2021/2226 on Electronic Instructions for Use (IFU) for medical devices Article 22 Packs EU Medical Device Regulations 1
B Telemedicine as a Medical Device EU Medical Device Regulations 4
S Definition of disease as per medical device defintion EU Medical Device Regulations 14
Q Class I Medical Device with measuring function (UK MDR 2002 / MDD) UK Medical Device Regulations 3

Similar threads

Top Bottom