Cons and Flaws in AAMI 62304

Aaria

Involved In Discussions
#1
Hi, I read few of your threads related to IEC 62304. I would be glad if you can help initiate a discussion which would be related to the 'cons'/flaws in 62304. Is the fact of the confusion to determine the safety classification of the software, and the amount of documentation that follows, is unnerving for manufacturers? Not to forget this standard being integrated in the 60601-1 3ed. I am still naive about this standard, but any such key points from you to discuss would be very helpful.
Thanks for your help in advance.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

yodon

Staff member
Super Moderator
#2
Re: Cons/Flaws in AAMI 62304

Without exaggerating too much, that's almost like asking to discuss the pros and cons of democracy. So how about if we turn it around. What do YOU think are the cons / flaws with the standard? What do YOU feel is unnerving to manufacturers?

Personally, I find it to be a fairly decent standard to guide establishment of a sound software lifecycle and a means to establish a standard safety rating with rational arguments for accompanying documentation.

No doubt there are imperfections and no doubt there will be zealots on both the pro and con side.
 
J

JSambrook

#3
Re: Cons/Flaws in AAMI 62304

With respect to the OP, I also think it's a pretty good standard.

I'd be interested in hearing any specific concerns people have. Good topic for discussion!
 

glork98

Involved In Discussions
#4
Re: Cons/Flaws in AAMI 62304

I fairly like 62304. A good balance of breadth while not being prescriptive in depth. I think it reflects the maturing of software as a true discipline and not the domain of secretive geniuses. (Although I enjoyed that immensely!)

One thing I find unhelpful is the integration test work. This comes naturally as modules or objects of greater scope are unit tested. Unless you've got "mocks" for every dependency the higher-level code on the class diagram (or lower if you draw it that way) pull in other objects. It's hard and not worthwhile to create, say, 3 programs that are each 1/3 of the project in order to test partial sets of code before doing the system-level tests.

Perhaps other types of work are more suited to this. I work on small (5K sloc) embedded devices so creating partial integrations is difficult conceptually and not really valuable practically.
 

c.mitch

Quite Involved in Discussions
#5
Re: Cons/Flaws in AAMI 62304

Hi all,

As I consider myself as citizen of elsmar.com democracy, here are a few remarks. :D

Pros:
This is a minimum standard, which cooperates well with 13485 and 14971. You may apply what you need against your software risk class A B or C.
It is easy to make a comparison with 12207, the most used software development process standard.
It is "configurable" to agile development methods with minimum efforts.


Cons:
Class of risk of software and class of risk in MD regulations (CE FDA ...) are sometimes difficult to reconciliate.
It lacks some more requirements about system architecture and system/software integration tests and delivery. But this is justified in the annexes of the standard.
It is a bit light about software project management. Again justified in the standard.
It lack on or two minor things required by FDA GPSV, like code review (only present in annex B).

I wrote more cons than pros. But the pros overpass easily the cons. This is a very good frame for software dev process for MD industry.

Regards.
 
D

dirkr

#6
Re: Cons/Flaws in AAMI 62304

Hi all,

I am new here, but like to contribute.

To my opinion a minor inconsistency is the missing demand for any testing of class A software. For class A not even system testing is required while the problem resolution chapter (9.8) requires full test documentation also for class A.

Personally I would never release a software without testing, but according to the standard it is not required and this can make it difficult to argue and justify effort against management.

However from a overall perspective the standard was of course a big step ahead, especially compared to the undefined state we had before (in Europe).
 

c.mitch

Quite Involved in Discussions
#7
Re: Cons/Flaws in AAMI 62304

Hi Dirkr,
Thanks for pointing out this inconsistency.
I think this is absolutely impossible to release software without thorough testing phase as well.

However from a overall perspective the standard was of course a big step ahead, especially compared to the undefined state we had before (in Europe).
I think the situation is quite clear now in Europe. It's true that the 60601-1 standard, which is "in service" since a long time, wasn't enough for software lifecycle. 62304 deals with software and section 14 of 60601-1 3rd edition deals with system and system-software integration.

Mitch.
 

glork98

Involved In Discussions
#8
Re: Cons/Flaws in AAMI 62304

Personally I would never release a software without testing,
62304 calls for verification against requirements but no unit or integraiton testing.

I agree it's a bit light in that way, but a very practical approach. If there's no chance of actual harm, only harm to customer opinion, leave it to the companies to decide what's right.

It's not practical to do thorough unit testing of complex GUI code in a "civilian" operating system. Having it work to suit users' needs is the essential part.
 

Peter Selvey

Staff member
Moderator
#9
Re Class A testing:

I had assumed the reason software system testing is missing for Class A was that they considered full system validation tests (including hardware, mechanical etc) to be enough. Since validation is excluded from the standard, and expected to be picked up under other design control standards (e.g. ISO 13485), there are no tests for Class A software.

For example, scales to measure patient weight in a low risk environment (Class A software) can validated by actually putting a weight on the scales and checking the display reads as expected. No need to pull the software out as a separate object and test it separately.

It's probably an important distinction even for higher risk systems, as they often include lower risk functions that can be pulled out as Class A and tested under "system validation" instead of "software testing".
 

glork98

Involved In Discussions
#10
Re: Cons/Flaws in AAMI 62304

62304 calls for verification against requirements but no unit or integraiton testing.
I should update this. There's no mandate for verification against software requirements. It rolls up into system-level testing.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
A What are the pros and cons of using an audit software for internal auditing? General Auditing Discussions 7
M Standards Subscription Service and Standards Tracking Service Pros and Cons? Other US Medical Device Regulations 3
Claes Gefvenberg Windows 8.1 - Pros & cons, hints & tips. After Work and Weekend Discussion Topics 5
Sam Lazzara Medical Device Barcode Pros and Cons: GS1 versus HIBC Other Medical Device Related Standards 13
K What are the Pros and Cons of Auditing? General Auditing Discussions 1
JoCam ESD Flooring vs. Concrete - Pros and Cons Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
V Corporate Quality Management System - Structure, Pros and Cons? Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 3
R Recognition Programs for Good Suppliers - Pros and Cons Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 6
GStough Internal Audit Checklist as a Controlled Document - Pros and Cons Internal Auditing 19
AnaMariaVR2 Pros & Cons of FDA viewing QAU Audit Report Findings US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 7
E Should FDA implement 3rd party (PMAs) reviews? What are the pros and cons of doing so Other US Medical Device Regulations 2
W Pros and Cons of continued ISO 17025 accreditation ISO 17025 related Discussions 6
Q Pros and Cons of Duplicating Documents & Records Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 10
Jeff Putman Multi-Division QMS Certification - Pros & Cons IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 16
somashekar Definition SMOI (Supplier Managed Owned Inventory) delivery terms - Pros and Cons Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations Listed Alphabetically 1
V Pros and Cons of integrating ISO 14001 and ISO 9001? ISO 14001:2015 Specific Discussions 4
Marc Glossy Screen Pros and Cons After Work and Weekend Discussion Topics 5
T Pros and Cons of Combined TS 16949 and ISO 14001 Audits General Auditing Discussions 3
H What are the pros and cons of working with gage pins? General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 10
A ISO 9001 Registration Pros and Cons ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 18
J Pros and cons for combining ISO 14001 Certification ISO 14001:2015 Specific Discussions 4
P Portable CMM, new purchase: PROs and Cons General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 4
D Ford Q-1 Pros and Cons Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 0
R Rework by Inspectors - Pros and cons of a quality inspector also doing rework? Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 20
G ISO 9001 Procedures: Flowchart vs. Text - Pros and Cons ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 6
T Understanding of, and Pros and Cons of, 17025 ISO 17025 related Discussions 3
R Registrar Audit Frequency - Pros and Cons of a 1 year vs a 6 month frequency ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 12
L PPM Defect Rate as a Performance Metric - Are there Flaws? Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 9
N LCD Pixel Flaws - ISO 9241-302,303,305 or 307? Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 2
Marc Inspectors find safety flaws where airline food is prepared Travel - Hotels, Motels, Planes and Trains 5
B Obvious Manufacturing Flaws... Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 5
Steve Prevette A Case Study - Flaws in a performance measure report Registered Visitor Articles Archive 6
Aymaneh AAMI TIR45 guidance wanted IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 4
A ANSI/AAMI versions of 60601-1-2 and related testing requirements Other Medical Device Related Standards 0
M Informational From AAMI – FDA Recognizes AAMI Standard and TIR Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
S Medical Device Endotoxin Testing for ANSI/AAMI ST72:2011/2016 Other Medical Device Related Standards 1
I Certification CISS by AAMI - I want to form a study group Professional Certifications and Degrees 5
L Can anyone enlighten me on the use of AAMI HE-74? Other Medical Device Related Standards 6
M AAMI draft report - Postmarket Risk Management ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 2
M AAMI/ANSI 11135-1:2007, EO Sterilization Other US Medical Device Regulations 8
B AAMI Standard - 6 Foot Radius Patient Vicinity Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 2
E Cleaning Validations for Reusable Products - ANSI/AAMI TIR30:2011 Requirements Other Medical Device Related Standards 3
M Differences between international and regional standards (EN, AAMI, CSA...) Other Medical Device Related Standards 6
A IEC/TR 80002-1:2009 vs. AAMI TIR32:2004 Other Medical Device Related Standards 3
S AAMI EC57 for ECG Medical Device - Seeking 3rd Party Test Laboratory US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 5
E Does anyone have a good understanding of the application of ANSI/AAMI AT6? Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 3
L AAMI TIR(SW1)/Agile Practices in the Development of Medical Device Software IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 8
D Independent Testing of ECG Electrodes in accordance with AAMI standards Reliability Analysis - Predictions, Testing and Standards 5
S AAMI TIR28:2009 Product adoption & process equivalency for ETO sterilization Other US Medical Device Regulations 2
M Harmonization of ANSI/AAMI PB70:2003, EN 13795? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 3

Similar threads

Top Bottom