Justification for Non-applicable clause at Stage 2, in clause 4.

#1
At stage 2 audit, when you come across a situation where a non-applicability is claimed and justified in clause 4.2.3 (In Clause 6,7,8 only, non-applicabality can be claimed, per the scope)., does this situation lead to a major NC / minor NC ?
Of course, the stage 1 has to be detecting such, but it was not captured in the stage 1.
Thoughts ...
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
#2
does this situation lead to a major NC / minor NC ?
If I were confronted with that situation I would STILL base my decision on a risk assessment. How critical is the missed process at hand? For example, if it were product design and development I would stop the stage 2 audit. If it is a minor sub clause, I would be concerned with the expected evidence that could be provided before a recommendation for certification would be triggered. Nevertheless, the CB should trigger a CAR to address the failure in identifying the issue during stage 1.
 

Hi_Its_Matt

Involved In Discussions
#3
At stage 2 audit, when you come across a situation where a non-applicability is claimed and justified in clause 4.2.3 (In Clause 6,7,8 only, non-applicabality can be claimed, per the scope)....
Just to make sure, you're saying the auditee claimed that 4.2.3 (Medical Device File) is not applicable? What was the justification?
 

Hi_Its_Matt

Involved In Discussions
#5
On the one hand you could call it a major due to the absence of a required part of the standard. If, however, the org can demonstrate that HQ actually maintains the required information and can provide it in a timely fashion, you could consider it a minor from a risk-based perspective. If the org maintains the portion of medical device file documents that are relevant to the work they perform, and there isn't a problem with missing documents/records throughout the inspection, I would likely go the latter route.
 

Jean_B

Trusted Information Resource
#6
What is the scope the auditee is going for?Since the 2016 edition of 13485, companies that are not medical device manufacturers (whether legal or contract) are allowed to certify against it. Main targets were "supply chain(component/raw material manufacturers)/distribution" (see its section 0.3), because they were often already asked to comply by clueless purchasing requirements but could technically not comply. In that case non- applicability could be justifiable as they have no device to keep such a file for.
Other angle: the legal manufacturer must have the access to the technical file/or arranged for IP matters to be accessed by the relevant notified body (in the EU). There should be arrangements (agreements) that arrange that access that can be audited as evidence if it lies with another party.
 

Jean_B

Trusted Information Resource
#8
The storage, distribution, installation and servicing of medical device...
That is a supply chain partner.
They would not have access nor responsibility to the usual file prescribed by 4.2.3, which is located at the legal manufacturer. The crucial takeaway from the clause is that the information relevant for a device is usable similarly to a DMR (to get this, do this), though not with such a nice sequence to it.

Installation and servicing, as well as competence evaluation instructions thereof are key, but would be provided and should be controlled as external documents, with arrangements to be kept up to date and select the right version/variant of device if applicable.
Should measurement be crucial, such as for devices that require calibration, those instructions and standards should be similarly controlled as well. Storage and shipping instructions would also be expected to be available linked to the product (if these are crucial).
Another set, usually not provided by the device manufacturer, should deal with relaying information for the devices: complaints up-chain, field safety notices etc downstream.


As for evidence of conformity, it would not have any direct means. It could request the relevant CoC/certification documentation (e.g. the EU Declaration of Conformity and the product list) of the device and verify it is on there. To be honest, this requirement depends far more on the regulatory regime whether it is representative of an actual requirement (in EU MDR it is).

Note that for the upstream component/raw material suppliers most of this would be provided by the purchase order specifications as usual, and far less or no device specific things would be expected.
When entire (sub)assemblies or devices are (contract) manufacturered it would tend more to a traditional DMR. However here that is not the case.
 
#9
Jean_B
In full agrement with what you say., can it be listed as non-applicable... ?
The Scope of the standard only permits non-applicable with justification in clause 6,7,8. The medical device file is in clause 4 (4.2.3)
To the extent of the activity, the client has to demonstrate that medical device file is maintained, even with the contents being external origin documents. Am I wrong in this interpretation ?
 

LUFAN

Involved In Discussions
#10
If this was an MDSAP audit, I think it will still fall under a "minor" score of 2. 1 point for Clause 4/5 + 1 point for a lack of procedure. Might be a better way to conceptualize it.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
T Justification of use of non-harmonized standards for MDR conformity Other Medical Device Related Standards 12
B Exclusions or justification for non-applicability of IEC standards Reliability Analysis - Predictions, Testing and Standards 1
P IATF 16949 Clause 8.4.2.3 - Justification for non-certified suppliers IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 14
T Justification of "Design Excluded" in IATF 16949 Design and Development of Products and Processes 5
M V&V phase: Justification of acceptance criteria (statistical method ) - (Medical Device) Design and Development of Products and Processes 2
B Per 21CFR 820.198 (b) - Justification for no investigation 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 22
M CER Adverse events - Justification of databases searched EU Medical Device Regulations 5
O Statistical justification of sampling size in V&V tests ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
V Statistical basis and justification while comparing / changing sampling plans Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 11
J Calibration Justification - Requirements for Measurement with a Calibrated Device General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 1
SATHYABALARAMAN Exclusion of IATF 16949 Clauses - 8.5.5.1 & 8.5.5.2 & Justification IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 9
N Sample Size Justification for Medical Device Shelf-Life Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 13
M Justification for Not Having a Validation Plan for a Critical Process ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
B EMC Repeat Justification - Reducing NRTL testing required after modification of ME IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 3
A Biocompatibility omission justification for FDA 510(k) 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 8
G Exemption Filing / Exemption Justification RoHS, REACH, ELV, IMDS and Restricted Substances 9
H Factory Dictated Sample Size Justification Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 9
J Justification for Exclusion of Design and Development ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 8
S Justification of Lifetime of a Medical Device including Component Aspects ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 13
C Justification for No CAPA in Complaint Files Nonconformance and Corrective Action 24
Q Sample Size justification for IEC 60601-1 Testing IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 4
Wes Bucey A justification to take HR out of hiring Career and Occupation Discussions 3
S Establishing an MSA Plan and Justification Suggestions wanted Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 1
G Sampling Plan - Sample Size Justification for a Bottling Cleaning Process Validation Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 2
M Justification for Month End Calibration Date Calibration Frequency (Interval) 24
X Justification of Decrease in Receivables, Increase in Negative Cashflows Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 2
J Sampling Plan Justification and Rationale Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 9
S MDR (Medical Device Reporting) Justification - Canned Statements Other US Medical Device Regulations 2
P Out of Tolerance Gage - Justification for not Recalling Product Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 7
Wes Bucey Justification for organization's tax-exempt status? Funny Stuff - Jokes and Humour 1
C Looking for Skills Matrix & Justification of skill levels. Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 5
A Justification for not performing overseas supplier audit General Auditing Discussions 6
Q Justification/Rationale for not investigating a nonconformance ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 19
P Reference Only Gages - "For Reference Only" Rationale (Reasoning/Justification) General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 25
G Justification for Supplier Quality Engineer Career and Occupation Discussions 3
M Justification for not doing Gage R&R Studies Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 13
J Medical Device FMEA Occurence Rating Scale Justification FMEA and Control Plans 3
J What would be the justification for exclusion of ISO9001 clause 7.5.1? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 13
J Software Justification in a Lean Environment - Convincing Management Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 12
R Frequency of self control and costs - Justification for 4 Hours vs. Every Hour IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
N CE Mark Auditing - All they had for CE was a written Technical Justification EU Medical Device Regulations 5
R Cost Justification Based Upon Intangibles - Cost of Quality Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 4
F Using non-randomized clinical study for change in existing 510(k) device? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
L Non Applicability of Clauses in ISO13485 for Medical Devices Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 4
B Transport Validation For Non-sterile Medical Devices ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
W Posting Non-Quality System instructions on the Production Floor Manufacturing and Related Processes 13
L Saudi regulations for Japanese non sterile scopes Japan Medical Device Regulations 0
D Is a lost calibrated tool an non-conformance for an audit? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 58
B Leadership non-conformity, Top Management's involvement in Problem Solving IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 10
malasuerte Performance of ISO 9001 certified vs. non-certified manufacturing companies ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 11

Similar threads

Top Bottom