Controls for Corrective Actions - A Plan - A Schedule - A Time Limit

A

AJPaton

#1
Controls for Corrective Actions

ISO 4.14.2 d) application of controls to ensure that corrective action is taken and that it is effective.

Does this indicate that there should be a:
1) plan for corrective action
2) schedule for corrective action
3) any other time limit for completion of corrective actions?

How do you control that corrective action is taken if you have no proposed close out date?

Thanks,

AJP
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
J

Jim Biz

#2
AJ - Don't know for sure why - but have always "read- TIMLEY" - into this one - sure setting dates is fine and within x days normally works out ..but some reasonably take longer than others .

Regards
Jim
 
A

AJPaton

#3
We've got a time limit for coming up with a corrective action plan, but now we're discussing what should be in the plan. Specifically, a completion date for the corrective action.

The assignee is best able to assess how long the action items will take. However, should s/he include that information in the plan?

My argument is that in order to implement controls some due date for action items must be set up.

Can you have controls on the corrective actions without some schedule involved, minimum - projected/required completion date?

I'd say no, but I may be missing something.

Thanks,

AJP

[This message has been edited by AJPaton (edited 26 July 2000).]
 
J

Jim Biz

#4
AJ you have a good basis for argument - I see a number of variables & possible good/bad outcomes to each side of the situation.

Originally posted by AJPaton:

The assignee is best able to assess how long the action items will take. However, should s/he include that information in the plan?
I for one would tend to agree - the assignee should take origional responsibility and include completion due timing as long as it is "REASONABLE" and "TIMLEY" to the task at hand. A free pass to set a date possibly years down the road is however not a good thing.

The responsibility for accepting the date supplied should/could be agreed and communicated to the assignees superior.

Sad part is that when you start "Setting Dates/timelines" that may/could be missed - what action steps would be included in the plan/procedures to cover a "missing the date issue" ?

It COULD turn into a "if I wait long enough the situation will go away item" and if nothing has been covered on the "what will happen if I just ignore it anyway" syndrome. - That would tend to give ammunition to anyone that really believes this ISO document stuff is "just bull" anyway.

IMHO PROJECTED could work - as long as there is a mechinisim in planning/procedure for moving the projected date due to unseen circumstances that come to light after the origional planning stage.... That way the assignees supierior would retain some semblance of "control" over what is or is not happening/when with the issue.

The final outcome of what works...where depends heavily on the individual workplace environment, commitment and attitudes.

Regards
Jim

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 28 July 2000).]
 
B

Bryan

#5
We see setting a reply due date for CAR's issued works ok, but setting a date for actual closure of CAR is more difficult. We had an understanding that a CAR could not be closed until the CA has been validated. Now recently, during an audit, we were told by our auditor that we did not have to wait to varify, in fact we could close the CAR if we accepted the reply, trusted the CA to take place from the CAR. If the CA did not work, we could just issue a new CAR.
I guess my guestion would be, is this a true statement made by the autitor that CAR'S can be closed before we validate the CA ??
Thanks for any input.

Bryan
 
A

AJPaton

#6
Bryan,

Our current take on this is that the Corrective Action can be closed when the action items are completed.

However, we then have an "Effectiveness Review" date that is set to check on the efficacy of the corrective action. That's how we set a control on the effectiveness, which I mentioned in my opening for this topic.

Hope this helps.

AJP
 

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration
Staff member
Admin
#7
I think the 'typical' approach is to consider the CA open until effectiveness is confirmed. However, in some instances this may take months or more. Typically a few weeks or so is sufficient time before confirming effectiveness in a high volume production operation.
 

barb butrym

Quite Involved in Discussions
#8
For long term complex CA I close them when action is complete and schedule a follow up audit when there is too long a period between...... For simple stuff I followup first, then close.....there is an option box on the CAR for choosing....

Your auditor should not be giving you advice that detailed/specific...it is only his opinion...You can be flexible, as these wounds for CA/PA are self inflicted typically

[This message has been edited by barb butrym (edited 21 August 2000).]
 
#9
Hi,

Ok, this is how we do it:

We have a rather big database application for audits and corrective actions.

First of all we allow two weeks to come up with a suggested action and deadline.

Every issue gets a deadline based on an estimate of the time needed to complete the agreed action. ( Deadlines are moved if necessary, but passing the deadline without reporting the status means that you'll find your issue on the delayed actions list on our intranet the very next day... People tend to dislike that ;-) ).

When an issue is closed, we're still not quite finished with it: The application adds a follow up date ( Default 90 days later ). We then proceed to make certain that the action taken has been effective. If not, we reopen the issue for further action.

I firmly believe that time limits are neccessary in this field.

Claes Gefvenberg
 
Q

qualman

#10
Is there a difference between corrective action and problem analysis? If so, what criteria would you use?

The reason I ask is because our current system mandates that a Problem Analysis (PA) be opened and processed for every single instance of non-conformance. As Barb mentioned in an earlier message, these "wounds" are typically self-inflicted. The problem is, my company is "wounding" itself to the point of total ineffectiveness.

Dos anybody have any suggestions or comments? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Regards

Qualman

P.S. To the gentleman from the great state of Texas (you know who you are) who referred me to this site, THANK YOU!

[This message has been edited by qualman (edited 29 August 2000).]

[This message has been edited by qualman (edited 29 August 2000).]
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
JodiB Corrective Action System - Controls Terminology Nonconformance and Corrective Action 21
Dean Bell Implementation of Controls as per SOA for Stage 2 Audit IEC 27001 - Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) 0
G Logistic organization and controls - IATF/ISO 9001 audit Nonconformance and Corrective Action 2
A Interpretation of GMP Requirements for class 1 medical device manufacturer (device GMP exempt, only General controls applicable) 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
C Compliance with ISO 17025 requirement 8.4.2 - Controls - Records recovery ISO 17025 related Discussions 4
M Special Controls and Class II Medical Devices Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 18
A UDI and Design Controls - Labeling change via the Design Control process 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
K Completing Design Controls after 510(k) Clearance Other US Medical Device Regulations 11
D Do purchasing controls apply to non-medical parts? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
Jimmy123 What is the difference between Error Proofing and Controls? ISO/IATF 16949 - Control Plans FMEA and Control Plans 16
D Reduction of software class based on multiple external risk controls IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 5
R Supplier Controls we can place on Single-Source Suppliers ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
K Supplier Controls for Animal Tissue Suppliers for Medical Devices Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
J ISO 9001 8.4.1 - Determining controls applied to externally provided processes ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8
M IATF 16949 - 8.5.6.1.1 Providing a list of process controls: Does this requirement add value to QMS? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
D Risk management according to ISO 14971 - When to document risk controls? ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 10
V Additional Controls for processing the raw data on different computers (processing system) Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 5
S Outsourcing manufacturing - Who controls the suppliers of parts to the CMO? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
shimonv 'Beta testing' & Design Controls 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 6
J Supplier controls for consumer-grade off-the-shelf products 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
F CQI-23 Special Process Molding - Controls IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
M Outsourcing and internal controls Internal Auditing 1
G More on IATF 8.5.6.1.1 - Temporary Change of Process Controls IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
M Controls to ensure that Quality Plans are accurate APQP and PPAP 2
M Controls for Suppliers of Translation Services - Receiving and Verification Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 5
T Temporary Change of Process Controls - IATF 16949 Clause 8.5.5.1.1 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 16
V Purchasing Controls - Prerequisites for Batch Release or even before Purchase Order 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 3
V Design Controls for Combination Drug Product Manufacturer (ANDA) 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
P IATF 16949 Clause 8.5.6.1.1 - Temporary Change of Process Controls IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 21
dubrizo Initial Supplier Identification, Review and Controls ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
J How to understand IATF 16949 Clause 8.5.6.1.1 - Process Controls IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
S Organizing Risk Analysis and Controls for a New Medical Device (ISO 14971) ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 4
Q PFMEA Scope and Detection Controls FMEA and Control Plans 1
Q US FDA UDI Compliance Question - Class II (Special Controls) Other Medical Device and Orthopedic Related Topics 4
S Audit checklist for "Design Controls" per ISO 13485 wanted Internal Auditing 3
K "Purchasing Controls" for Stand-alone Software US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2
R Calibration of processing equipment - 21 CFR 820.70 Production and process controls 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 3
M Interpreting Process Controls - 21 CFR Part 820.70(a) 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 5
J The application of Design Controls to IVDs 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 3
S Attribute G&R for all Visual Controls in Control Plan Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 1
E ISO 9001-2008 Purchasing controls ? Issuing POs Without Specific Approvals Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 8
M Supplier Audit Form for Purchasing Controls ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
shimonv Controls for Investigational Medical Device (a challenging question..) Other US Medical Device Regulations 4
M CE Marking of Performance Controls CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 3
C Controls and Preventions are not "OJT", "Ample Supply" & "Supervisor Verification" FMEA and Control Plans 4
Z PFMEA Detection Controls and Ranking - Prevent Shipment FMEA and Control Plans 3
K Importance of Medical Device Accessory Design Controls Other US Medical Device Regulations 4
S Colors of Controls - RF Generating Device Handpiece Connector IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2
M Process Controls - Wood Glue Adhesive Failure Manufacturing and Related Processes 7
T 21 CFR Part 820.30 Design Controls for Class 1 Medical Device 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 6

Similar threads

Top Bottom