Finding parts to meet ISO 15001 (Anaesthetic and respiratory equipment)

M

milagre

#1
I am hoping to get in touch with someone who has worked with ventilators or anaesthetic gas machines before. My company is making an infant CPAP, and as such, we are trying to comply with ISO 15001:2011 - "Anaesthetic and respiratory equipment - compatibility with oxygen".

We are having a hard time finding tubing connectors that meet the requirements for this standard. I think this might be because of my interpretation of the standard.

Per section 4.1 of the standard, I determined we only need to show a level of hydrocarbon contamination less than 550mg/m2. This is because our device is in the range of 50 kPa to 3000 kPa.

I have been pursuing tubing fittings that are "degreased" for use with oxygen to try to fulfill this requirement. Unfortunately, it seems most companies that make fittings don't offer the degreased options for small fittings. Our fittings need to be in the range of 6-10mm tubing.

Failing to find officially "degreased" options, I turned to the annex of ISO 15001. Here, in Annex B, I found that one way of validating a cleaning procedure is to observe the component for absence of contaminants with normal vision udner a strong white light. This method can detect conamination down to 500mg/m2.

I am pretty sure that fittings that are bought NOT degreased meet this inspection criteria. Looking into it more, most of the "degreased" fittings out there seem to strive for <100mg/m2 hydrocarbon content, which is way less than we need. This is usually achieved through some series of heat and chemical cleaning processes.

My main questions in this situation are:

- Do we really need to meet the <500mg/m2 hydrocarbon requirement in our device?

- Are there any acceptable in-house cleaning/validation methods to show compliance with that requirement? (since it seems no suppliers will meet it)
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Marcelo

Inactive Registered Visitor
#3
I think you are referring to the EN ISO 2011 version (which is harmonized with the EU directives), as there?s no ISO version from 2011 (the ISO one is from 2010).

Anyway, regarding your questions:

- Do we really need to meet the <500mg/m2 hydrocarbon requirement in our device?
If you don?t know, I think it?s difficult for anyone to know that. My question would be, what is the requirement here? If I remember correctly, this standard was created to be harmonized with Essential Requirement 7.3. of the EU MDD

The devices must be designed and manufactured in such a way that they can be used safely with the materials, substances and gases with which they enter into contact during their normal use or during routine procedures
As any harmonized standard, it?s voluntary, and you might show compliance with the ER in other justifiable ways.

From you question, it seems you do not have another way, so it would be appropriate to following the requirements of the standard.

- Are there any acceptable in-house cleaning/validation methods to show compliance with that requirement? (since it seems no suppliers will meet it)
From what I remember when I participated more actively in the development of standards for ventilators and anesthesia, this standards was developed with a focus on the manufacturer, not supplier, because the standard deals with compatibility with oxygen in the medical device as a whole, not parts of it.

Annex A and B gives options of suitable cleaning and related cleaning validation procedures. The expectation is that you, as the manufacturer, use those as a basis for showing compliance with the standard.
 
Last edited:
M

milagre

#4
Indeed, I did mean to say 2010.

Regarding your last point, my company buys the fittings for use in our device. We don't manufacture the fittings ourselves. We have been looking for a manufacturer that supplies cleaned fittings for oxygen use, but none of the companies making small-diameter fittings offer that option (even if we offer to pay for them to do the cleaning).

Thus, I am trying to figure out how to ensure the fittings are sufficiently clean in-house. This could either be through a cleaning process or inspection. I am considering the methods in Annexes A and B. The limit for hydrocarbon contamination is pretty low for our device since it is relatively low pressure. I would say we could follow the visual inspection protocol recommended in Annex B, but we can’t see ~50% of the walls inside the small diameter fittings.

I think your mention of satisfying the essential requirement without the standard is interesting. I think if we test our fittings at the max pressure/temperature they could be subjected to in a single fault condition, and if they don’t catch fire, this will demonstrate they are safe. This test, along with paperwork regarding leachables and the visual inspection (slightly limited by the geometry of the fittings) might be enough to satisfy the essential requirement.

However, I am not sure if that kind of plan would be acceptable for regulators, so I am wary of recommending it to my company.
 
M

milagre

#5
I just reviewed Annex 5 of ISO 15001, which provides rationale for the standard's clauses. Here, there is rationale for clause 4.1, which is the clause that requires components exposed to oxygen at pressures of 50kPa-3000kPa to have a <550mg/m2 hydrocarbon contamination level.

The rationale says that:

Within the pressure range of 50 kPa to 3000 kPa, the presence of particles is not believed to be an ignition hazard, but other problems such as leaks past seals may require control of particle contamination.
I think that based on this rationale, our device does not need to comply with section 4.1. That is because our device is compliant with the section in 60601-1 that covers oxygen rich environments (11.2.2). Being compliant with this, "leaks past seals" would not cause either a dangerous situation or a loss of device function, as oxygen leaking past a seal could not cause an ignition hazard in our 11.2.2 compliant design.

Do you agree with this interpretation? How do I move forward with this issue? I assume I just document my rationale in the RMF and do NOT declare compliant with ISO 15001.
 

Marcelo

Inactive Registered Visitor
#6
Well, if your only focus is on the fire/exposure hazard, you may use this rationale. However, the essential requirement for this is ER 9.3.

I "think" you still need to comply with 7.3., and I don?t think this rationale fits that ER.
 
M

milagre

#7
Could you explain why you think that? Why do you think section 4.1(a) is related to 7.3 in some way other than fire/exposure hazards?
 

Marcelo

Inactive Registered Visitor
#8
Could you explain why you think that? Why do you think section 4.1(a) is related to 7.3 in some way other than fire/exposure hazards?
I?m not saying 4.1 a) is related 7.3 in some way other than fire/exposure hazards.

I?m saying that ISO 15001 is related to more than fire/exposure hazard.

As mentioned in the introduction:

Aspects of compatibility that are addressed by this International Standard include cleanliness, resistance to ignition and the toxicity of products of combustion and/or decomposition at the design, manufacturing, maintenance and disposal stages.
If you look at the Annex ZA from the EN standard (which links the standard requirements with the essential principles it covers), you will see that the standard is meant to cover ERs 7.1 first indent, 7.3, 9.2 first indent and 9,3 (see attached image).
 

Attachments

M

milagre

#9
Ah okay. I misunderstood the previous post.

I agree that we need to make sure all of the essential requirements related to the standard are met. My plan was to document rationale for not complying with section 4.1(a), and then take guidance from the rest of the clauses in ISO 15001 to ensure all of the related essential requirements are met.

For our device, the remaining requirements are only relating to the toxicity issues in 7.1 and 7.3, which can be addressed in the biological evaluation of the device. The other aspects of 7.1,7.3, 9.2, and 9.3 mentioned in ISO 15001 would not need to be addressed, as they are either not applicable or adequately addressed by 60601-1, 11.2.2.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
J Audit Finding For Not Retaining Test Results ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
A OHSAS 18001 external auditor finding personal interpretation? Occupational Health & Safety Management Standards 5
E Received a Major finding during IATF Surveillance audit for loss of BIQS Level 3 (more than 6 SPPS in 6 months)...how should we address SYSTEMIC CA? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 11
Marco Bernardi Finding a flat or not modeling distribution: how to manage it? Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 24
H Looking for Tips on finding an IATF consultant Consultants and Consulting 6
D Customer Audit Finding ISO13485:2016 7.6 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 7
B PED 2014/68/EU - Is this Traceability audit finding correct? Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 4
XRAY_3121 Design and Development Requirement - MDSAP Audit Finding Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 5
R Major nonformance finding was given during a closing meeting of a ISO9001 certification audit General Auditing Discussions 76
G Audit finding - Components being transferred inter-plant Internal Auditing 3
S Difficulty Finding A Notified Body for CE Marking - No Capacity Registrars and Notified Bodies 5
D AEA (Aerospace Experience Auditor) Challenges - Finding availability of AEA for witness AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 3
B IATF 16949 7.1.5.3.2 FAQ #7 Audit Finding - External Calibration Laboratory IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
P Major Finding Elevation - Do I elevate this minor finding to a major one? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 14
S GM/VP softgrading internal audit finding - need feedback from an audit guru! General Auditing Discussions 11
Q Customer Requirements - AS9120B Audit Finding AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 24
J IATF 16949 registration - Major Nonconformance Finding IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 9
J Hardness inspection Audit Finding Employee error Nonconformance and Corrective Action 6
J How long should I have to correct an audit finding? VDA Standards - Germany's Automotive Standards 7
AlienraverX How to appeal a major audit finding ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 26
T Non-addressed Minor Finding elevated to Major Finding Internal Auditing 37
S Definition Would a wrong definition constitute an Audit Finding? Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations Listed Alphabetically 3
L Audit Finding Flowchart for Feedback General Auditing Discussions 6
B Finding a Fixture Design Course to meet Customer Requirements General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 3
A Audit Finding - CAPA, Improvement Initiatives not filed in CAR System ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
O CFDA (China Food and Drugs Administration) Audit Finding Classifications China Medical Device Regulations 1
B Expired Materials (threadlocker) Audit Finding Classification? Internal Auditing 1
S Is not training to ISO 9001 procedures a finding? General Auditing Discussions 16
S Could I issue major finding for Inadequate Procedures Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 17
S Finding a substantial Equivalent Medical Device Other US Medical Device Regulations 4
H Cause analysis for an Audit Finding - Purchasing Procedure Content ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 9
R Finding specific 510k guidance for Keratoprosthesis (MLP) Other US Medical Device Regulations 1
S Is it a Finding if all Internal Auditors are from the Quality Department? Internal Auditing 18
A Writing an Internal Audit Report Finding for Employee Awareness of QMS Documents ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 11
I Finding optimum transformation equation for two sets of data Using Minitab Software 15
S Audit finding for JPAL ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
R Can a external auditor raise a finding that is already identified in Internal Audit ? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 11
J Validating a stopped test due to never finding any defects Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 2
G Supplier Significant Environmental Aspects - Audit Finding ISO 14001:2015 Specific Discussions 21
C Notification to Customers regarding Major Audit Finding IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 25
L CB finding on Management Review Meeting Management Review Meetings and related Processes 32
J Questionable Audit Finding about Revision Levels of Product Manual CD's ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
J 8.3.2.1 Monitoring/Measurement Audit Finding IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
J Follow up on Major Audit Finding General Auditing Discussions 15
C ISO 9001:2008 Audit Major Finding - Dial Calipers not set to zero ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 16
Q Finding the best QMS Software Quality Assurance and Compliance Software Tools and Solutions 4
M Internal Audit finding versus External Audit finding General Auditing Discussions 2
cscalise Legal Obligation to report ISO 13485 Finding to FDA? Registrars and Notified Bodies 1
M Finding a hardware supplier/distributor compliant with RoHS RoHS, REACH, ELV, IMDS and Restricted Substances 1
K Need help finding a book on Documentation Book, Video, Blog and Web Site Reviews and Recommendations 8

Similar threads

Top Bottom