Interpretation of Ele.4.10.5 with respect to records of inspection authority?

Q

Qualabear

#1
The last portion of 4.10.5 reads "Records shall identify the inspection authority responsible for the release of the product (see 4.16)"

QUESTION: To what extent does this requirement apply to records that show which individuals are responsible for what inspection stamps when product release is conveyed via that stamp?

At our tier 1 1/2 operation, we had maintained lists of individual stamp authority as controlled records to provide accountability for tracing Customer Claims back to the particular inspectors who may need additional training or determine a pattern of dereliction of duty.

Based on a recent internal audit finding that these lists were not being accurately maintained as called out in the procedures, the audited party (hereafter referred to as 'victim') determined the fix to be removal of lists from the controlled records list and the procedures. Now, it's supposed to be just something that the supervisors maintain if they so desire as 'reference only'. In other words, now it's ok for it to be wrong because it doesn't really mean anything.

Is this kosher? Or am I still The Man.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
M

Martijn TVM

#2
Well How difficult is it to update your stamp list or control your stamps it doesn't sound very difficult, but it must depend on the size of the company.

I take care of that specific requirements by defining responsebility in the job description. and in our Standard operating procedures.

But if you want to you're still the man.
 
B

Brian Dowsett

#3
Dear Qualabear,
You are still the man (but you know that already).
Obviously if you haven't got a means of identifying who owns what stamp then you haven't a means to identify the person who inspected and released the product and therefore aren't complying with the standard.

You should change the name to grizzlibear and growl more.
 
P

Paul Morrow

#4
QUESTION: Do you have records that identify the inspection authority responsible for the release of product?

If not, you don't comply.
 
Q

Qualabear

#5
Thanks Gents,

Martijn - :)
When you say - "defining responsibility in the job description" - it sounds like you're listing the responsible function or position. We have a large facility and have multiple people at each inspection function so I'm of the opinion that a more person-specific record is required to tie it all together. Sound reasonable?

Brian, Paul - :D
Thanks for the support. I just wanted to find out some other QP opinions before I went to battle over this issue. I moved into this Audit Coordinator position from Process Eng and some of our 'Quality Professionals' are lacking somewhat in their confidence (or are trying to take advantage :mad: ).

I was also hoping to get one of our esteemed 'Cheech Wizards' to weigh in on this lowly subject (what can I say, I'm gunning for a slam dunk here :D ). Any takers?

------------------
This "Depends° Moment" has been brought to you by QS9000!
 

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration
Staff member
Admin
#6
I haven't paid much attention to this thread as I abhor stamps. Sorry... I think stamps are silly. I prefer initials.

You decide how 'precise' you want traceability to be - to an individual or to a departmental manager, for example. The requirement is to the authority, however, not the individual per se (someone has to ultimately take responsibility be it the individual or the departmental manager).

My opinion: Ditch the stamps, switch to initials and get on with your show. However - if you keep the stamps the wording of your procedure (with consideration of what you intend to achieve with the stamp) is what will define the details. It's your option.

"...Now, it's supposed to be just something that the supervisors maintain if they so desire as 'reference only'...." This leads to dangerous questions, but you could probably justify it if you 'adjust' your procedures.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D IATF16949 - Interpretation of Customer Requirements clauses Elsmar Cove Forum Suggestions, Complaints, Problems and Bug Reports 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
P MDR Rule 10 interpretation - Active Device EU Medical Device Regulations 3
Q % Study variation low, % tolerance high - GR&R Interpretation help Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 3
A Interpretation with regards to Ppk > Cpk Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 14
A OHSAS 18001 external auditor finding personal interpretation? Occupational Health & Safety Management Standards 5
A OEM branding - My interpretation of the LVD Directive makes us a manufacturer CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 3
P Average Peel Strength - Interpretation of BS EN 868-5:2018 and ASTM F0088/F0088M Other Medical Device Related Standards 2
B ISO 50001 Interpretation of section 3.3.9 (Outsourcing) ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
K Interpretation of significant change - material change Canada Medical Device Regulations 3
R MDR Software Rule 11 Formal Interpretation EU Medical Device Regulations 7
A IATF Sanctioned Interpretation No. 7 - Type and Extent of Control (supplemental) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
F Interpretation of MDR 2017/745 Article 23 - CE Mark Requirements EU Medical Device Regulations 8
U Hand-Held dosing device has no PATIENT - Interpretation of the PATIENT definition IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 6
G Medical Device "Immediate Container" Interpretation of Definition US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2
A Interpretation of Article 16 (2b) - Packaging, samples and Certificate EU Medical Device Regulations 10
D EU MDR Corrigendum Interpretation EU Medical Device Regulations 3
M Informational MDCG 2019-3 Interpretation of Article 54(2)b – Pre- market clinical evaluation consultation procedure with the involvement of expert panels Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
G EU MDR 2017/745 Rule 11 interpretation - Re-classification of a Software as Medical Device Other Medical Device Related Standards 0
JoshuaFroud Interpretation of Clause 5.5.2 in ISO 13485:2016 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
qualprod P x I = Value interpretation for residual risk? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
T CSA Z299.3-85 Nuclear interpretation AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 2
D VDA Trigger Matrix in the VDA 6.2 Manual - Interpretation and Use VDA Standards - Germany's Automotive Standards 3
B Interpretation of Customer Specific Requirements of Continental - Records Retention Customer and Company Specific Requirements 6
S Interpretation or Definition of ‘Once Every 5 Days’ ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
N What is the interpretation I-MR-R chart in this question? Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 1
E ME (Medical Equipment) Systems - IEC 60601-1 Clause 16.1 Interpretation IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 6
P IATF 16949 Cl. 7.1.5.2.1 "Calibration/Verification Records" Interpretation IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 12
B Clarification on interpretation of some EN ISO 14971:2012 & IEC 62304:2006 req's ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 46
M IATF 16949 - 7.1.3.1 Plant, Facility, and Equipment Planning - Interpretation IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 8
R Location Interpretation on Drawing - Hole to Hole? Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 7
T TS 16949 Clause 7.4.1.2 and Sanctioned Interpretation IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 12
D Interpretation of new IAQG ruling - Audit duration for nonconformance verification AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 7
K Interpretation of IEC 60601-1-2 Electromagnetic Compatibility – Requirements & tests IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 4
S Heat Treatment - Soaking time interpretation Manufacturing and Related Processes 5
D Interpretation of DOE interaction plot Using Minitab Software 8
A Training material for interpretation & understanding Part 11 requirements 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
L Interpretation of "Any or All"'? IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 10
G Interpretation of phrase - "Direct Authority" EASA and JAA Aviation Standards and Requirements 5
pittmatj Brazil: Interpretation of RDC 185 Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 6
D What is your understanding or interpretation of TS16949 7.4.1.2 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
M Interpretation of Plus/Minus Draft - Injection Molded Parts Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 10
E FDA Significant Change Interpretation - Guidance Document EU Medical Device Regulations 2
0 ISO 9001:2008 interpretation not the same per country? (Netherlands and France) ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
M Multiple Standard Interpretation Queries Occupational Health & Safety Management Standards 4
A Need MSA %GRR Interpretation Advice Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2
P EU Conflict Minerals Regulation Interpretation RoHS, REACH, ELV, IMDS and Restricted Substances 3
S AS9102 Interpretation on Form 2 field 6 - Specification AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 3
A Coke Reactivity Index (CRI) Testing Code Interpretation: ASTM D5341-99 (2004) Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 2
P Internal Audit Reports reviewed by management? 21 CFR 820.22 Interpretation 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 6

Similar threads

Top Bottom