EU MDR Basic UDI-DI and Technical Documentation for Systems

#1
We are confused about Basic UDI-DI and would like some input on how you're all handling this, especially if you document systems that consist of a system and dependent accessories. In our case, we have monitors and dependent accessories that record things like blood pressure, oxygen saturation, pulse, and temperature. The monitor is meaningless without the accessories, and the accessories can't work without the monitor. Getting back to Basic UDI-DI, we're confused about whether we need to create a multitude of technical files for each accessory group (intended purpose and risk classification), or whether we can follow our MDD model of a system technical file with monitor and accessories, but have multiple DoCs, one for each Basic UDI-DI that applies using the criteria of intended use and risk class. Anyone run into this situation, and if so, how have you handled it?
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
#2
I agree with you this is very confusing. On our side we have a read-out module and several probes with different sizes. I consider these coverd by the same basic UDI-DI (same design file, same technical file, same risk class, same intended purpose). Than, each module & probe has its specific UDI-DI. This means that under one basic UDI-DI I will cover all UDI-DI.
 
#3
Thank you, Syrane. How will you handle Annex IV? Will you have one Declaration of Conformity or multiple Declarations of Conformity, each with its own Basic UDI-DI?
 
#4
Thank you, Syrane. How will you handle Annex IV? Will you have one Declaration of Conformity or multiple Declarations of Conformity, each with its own Basic UDI-DI?
We have quite similar stuff like we have an instrument (analyzer) and it has lots of accompanying"accessories" and "components". We are keeping just one tech file for all of these as well as just one DoC but the DoC indexes the name, part number, GMDN code of the instrument in the top table and then there is another table that mentions the accessories with the names, part number, GMDN info
 
#5
Same for us. As we have already the UDI in place, we are sticking a copy of the UDI labels of the different parts that are delivered on the DoC. At the end of the DoC we are listing all product codes (for the different modules & probes) with all corresponding UDI-DI. This allows us to have only one DoC. What worries me more is the last document that was edited by the MDCG (MDCG 2019-5) concerning the registration of lecacy devices in Eudamed (attached file). We have for example a certificate under the MDD that goes until 2023. However, we already have a UDI system in place using Gs1 as accredited agency. Indeed, we had to put this UDI system in place for the USA like a number of other manufacturers. According to this MDCG 2019-5 document as long as our equipments are not certified under the MDR we have to register them in EUDAMED (no problem) BUT it is EUDAMED which is going to assign us a basic UDI-DI as well as all UDI-DIs. How should we handle this? Will we have to integrate 2 UDIs on our labels (the EUDAMED one which will be unknown by interested parties outside Europe and the Gs1 accredited UDI which is a perfect tracability tool?)
I am wondering if european experts know about MD industry and what is going on outside Europe! Real-World experts would be great!
 

Attachments

#7
Why not? We are moving away from the UDI concept of allowing tracability of a product. The UDImust be linked to a product nota regulation. Indeed, Annex VI Part C point 5.5 recalls that a UDI is not a proof of compliance with the MDR.
 
#8
Ironically, I just ran into this today while trying to create the process and template for the SSCP. Ac cording to MDCG Guidance Document on the SSCP, the UDI-DI of a "system" is the only one that should be referenced in the SSCP - the component's individual UDI-DI should be 'transparent" to the end user.

I understand that for various reasons, but there is a TD "sampling" method mentioned meaning that the system may receive a DoC without the NB having reviewed the individual component's UDI-DI and corresponding SSCP (if applicable). Then there is a revision history and a part of that is supposed to include when a component is validated by the NB.

For transparency, to me that means that the revision history will not be published on Eudamed? In addition, in the device description per the Guidance Document states:

"In Eudamed, the SSCP is associated to one unique Basic UDI-DI. All UDI- DIs/devices associated to this Basic UDI-DI will be seen as having the same SSCP (a UDI-DI/device must always be associated with one and only one Basic UDI-DI).

If the device is a system of several components/devices, each device in the system should have a Basic UDI-DI but also one Basic UDI-DI for the system. It is the Basic UDI-DI for the system that is intended to be provided in section 1.4 in the template, and that will be associated with the SSCP in Eudamed. The device system, and any Basic UDI-DIs of included devices, should be described in section 3.1."

It entirely possible that I cannot see the "forest through the trees" at the moment, but that seems to be in conflict? the individual UDI-DIs should still be a part of the SSCP? But for transparency, only the system UDI-DI should be shown?

I understand that the original question was for a different purpose, but it seems it is all related or will be?

Thanks - any feedback is appreciated!
 
#9
We have quite similar stuff like we have an instrument (analyzer) and it has lots of accompanying"accessories" and "components". We are keeping just one tech file for all of these as well as just one DoC but the DoC indexes the name, part number, GMDN code of the instrument in the top table and then there is another table that mentions the accessories with the names, part number, GMDN info
This is so helpful to me because I am dealing with a system for a procedure and that system includes a parent device and then a couple of other components (measuring device and surgical instruments for cutting etc.). I did not know if I should have one DOC which would show all parts of the system. However, each part of the system is also sold separately as replacements etc. Do we need a separate DOC for each part of the system for this purpose? Or, can we simply use the one DOC which includes the parent device and components...?
 
#10
Ironically, I just ran into this today while trying to create the process and template for the SSCP. Ac cording to MDCG Guidance Document on the SSCP, the UDI-DI of a "system" is the only one that should be referenced in the SSCP - the component's individual UDI-DI should be 'transparent" to the end user.

I understand that for various reasons, but there is a TD "sampling" method mentioned meaning that the system may receive a DoC without the NB having reviewed the individual component's UDI-DI and corresponding SSCP (if applicable). Then there is a revision history and a part of that is supposed to include when a component is validated by the NB.

For transparency, to me that means that the revision history will not be published on Eudamed? In addition, in the device description per the Guidance Document states:

"In Eudamed, the SSCP is associated to one unique Basic UDI-DI. All UDI- DIs/devices associated to this Basic UDI-DI will be seen as having the same SSCP (a UDI-DI/device must always be associated with one and only one Basic UDI-DI).

If the device is a system of several components/devices, each device in the system should have a Basic UDI-DI but also one Basic UDI-DI for the system. It is the Basic UDI-DI for the system that is intended to be provided in section 1.4 in the template, and that will be associated with the SSCP in Eudamed. The device system, and any Basic UDI-DIs of included devices, should be described in section 3.1."

It entirely possible that I cannot see the "forest through the trees" at the moment, but that seems to be in conflict? the individual UDI-DIs should still be a part of the SSCP? But for transparency, only the system UDI-DI should be shown?

I understand that the original question was for a different purpose, but it seems it is all related or will be?

Thanks - any feedback is appreciated!
Hi Valerie,

I was just wondering if you could advice where the below excerpt has been taken from please? I couldn't find it any of the sources I browsed;

"In Eudamed, the SSCP is associated to one unique Basic UDI-DI. All UDI- DIs/devices associated to this Basic UDI-DI will be seen as having the same SSCP (a UDI-DI/device must always be associated with one and only one Basic UDI-DI).

If the device is a system of several components/devices, each device in the system should have a Basic UDI-DI but also one Basic UDI-DI for the system. It is the Basic UDI-DI for the system that is intended to be provided in section 1.4 in the template, and that will be associated with the SSCP in Eudamed. The device system, and any Basic UDI-DIs of included devices, should be described in section 3.1."

Thank you
Kind Regards,
Ajanta
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
F MDR 2017/745 Basic UDI-DI, UDI-DI & UDI-PI EU Medical Device Regulations 0
H MDD CM, MDR manufacturer. 2020. Is it ok? EU Medical Device Regulations 1
M MDR, RED and LVD - Should our device comply with them? EU Medical Device Regulations 1
E UK MDR brexit out of sync with EU MDR deadline? Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 2
S MDR Delay - MDD design Change? (before new MDR DOA) EU Medical Device Regulations 8
S Class I MDR Article 10 – QMS EU Medical Device Regulations 1
dgrainger Medical Device News MDR postponed - link to Official Journal of the European Union (24-4-2020) EU Medical Device Regulations 2
K Supply Agreement Regarding MDR 2017/745 - Manufacturer-supplier cooperation Other Medical Device Related Standards 0
Ed Panek Medical Device News MDR Delayed 1 year (Posted 4/2020) EU Medical Device Regulations 9
dinaroxentool Former Class I device that is upscaled to IIa if the MDR is delayed EU Medical Device Regulations 2
B FDA-Medical Device Reporting (MDR )procedure compliant with 21CFR section 803 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 0
J PPE, the MDR and EU 2016/425 EU Medical Device Regulations 4
R An indication that the device is a medical device (MDR, Annex 23.2q) - applicable for accessories? EU Medical Device Regulations 5
R Clinical evaluation without clinical data - MDR Article 61(10) EU Medical Device Regulations 1
dgrainger Informational Postponement of MDR - adopted by the Commission - April 2020 Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 3
R Applicability of new non-harmonized standards (MDD/MDR) EU Medical Device Regulations 8
F The EU Drafts Bill to Postpone MDR by a Year (3/2020) Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 2
T Commission proposal being drawn up for postponement for date of application of MDR (2017/745) EU Medical Device Regulations 7
A MDR Article 22 applicability - Legal manufacturer EU Medical Device Regulations 6
M Estimating the benefit-risk ration under MDR EU Medical Device Regulations 1
F Will the EU postpone 2017/745 MDR Implementation - COVID-19 Impact Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 11
Ajit Basrur Physical Address on Product Labels (EU MDR perspective) EU Medical Device Regulations 2
B Notified Bodies for Software (MDR) EU Medical Device Regulations 1
P MDR Rule 10 interpretation - Active Device EU Medical Device Regulations 3
JoCam Certified Body Audit of MDR requirements EU Medical Device Regulations 4
N Label Placement Requirement in MDD/MDR EU Medical Device Regulations 1
Watchcat Anyone had an MDR technical file review/audit yet? EU Medical Device Regulations 13
C MDR - Question around software accesories EU Medical Device Regulations 2
M Has anyone has been through an MDR audit? (3/2020) EU Medical Device Regulations 1
M MDR - Packaging - Secondary Medical Device Boxes EU Medical Device Regulations 2
adir88 MDR requirement: Risk Management Plan for "each device" ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 5
N Whether your NB is pushing you for MDR? Registrars and Notified Bodies 0
M MDR - Is a formal GSPR Procedure required? EU Medical Device Regulations 20
S Difference between EU-MDR Annex IX and the Annex-combo X&XI EU Medical Device Regulations 2
S Article 61 - MDR Clinical Investigation Requirement EU Medical Device Regulations 5
C Article 16 MDR - Medicine packaged together with Medical Device EU Medical Device Regulations 0
V Preparing the IFU in compliance with MDR 745, Chapter III Elsmar Xenforo Forum Software Instructions and Help 2
J MDD to MDR transition - Time required for the implementation of the MDR EU Medical Device Regulations 7
P MDR PRRC (person responsible for regulatory compliance) and personal liability EU Medical Device Regulations 2
S What is a "Device Malfunction" for MDR purposes? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
F MDR system/procedurepack (article 22) with device acc. to MDD and MDR CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 2
I Maintaining Technical Documentation under MDD and MDR EU Medical Device Regulations 1
J Looking for a EU MDR Gap Analysis template EU Medical Device Regulations 4
K EIFU indicator symbol - Class I labels as per EU MDR EU Medical Device Regulations 2
M MDR Impact on MDSAP Countries Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 16
S EU MDR Annex XIV - Clinical Evaluation Plan - What do these methods mean? EU Medical Device Regulations 12
JoCam Software Translation under MDR requirements EU Medical Device Regulations 5
W Updated EU MDR regulatory matrix wanted ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 43
Watchcat Impact of MDR on Availability of Medical Devices in EU EU Medical Device Regulations 5
M MDR Literature search timeline EU Medical Device Regulations 13
Similar threads


















































Top Bottom