Medical Device Failure Effects - Where to draw the line?

J

Julison

#1
Hi,

I work for a medical device manufacturer.
I have led a few FMEAs to date and have run into a frequent issue of determining where to limit potential effects.
For example:
MFG Step Requirement: Deposit an Enzyme layer of 1 (+/-0.1um) on electrode.
Failure Modes: 1) Deposit too thick, 2) Deposit too thin, 3) Step missed.
Effects for any one of those Failure modes could be: Local: Fail Part, Local: Rework. Next Step: Poor adhesion, End: Product does not meet customer needs - Dissatisfied Customer, Product does not meet customer needs - misdiagnosis.

The question that typically comes up is: Should we consider existing prevention and detection control measures when determining potential effects? My belief is that you do not take control measures into account when identifying potential effects. I could be wrong here though and would like some outside opinions before I go too far off course.

Similarly, when determining severity, do you discount end user impacts if you have a great downstream detection or upstream prevention?

Any help here would be greatly appreciated,
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
A

amehta44

#2
Hi Julison,

FMEA is a techniques used to determine high-risk product features based on the impact of a failure and the likelihood that a failure could occur without detection.

FMEA in a nutshell requires the following:
1. You analyze the product - including all functions, current performance levels, and definitions of failures of each function.
2. For each function, you'd then identify failures modes and associated effects.
3. You define Severity (S) for each failure mode: assigned as number 1-10, 1= not significant, 10=most severe.
4. You define the probability of occurrence (P): assigned as number 1-10, 1=not likely to occur, 10=highly likely to occur
5. You define the likelihood (D) of detection: assigned as number 1-10, 1=easily detected, 10=hard to detect
6. You calculate Risk Pririty Number (RPN): Severity (S) * Probability (P) * Detectability (D) [Result: 1-1000]
7. You'd then prioritize the failure modes based on RPN. Some organizations use threshold values, above which preventive action must be taken. For example, the organization may require improvement for any RPN exceeding 120.

With that said, lets look at your questions:

"I have led a few FMEAs to date and have run into a frequent issue of determining where to limit potential effects.": You'd include all potential high-risk effects, and let the RPN help you prioritize improvements.

"Should we consider existing prevention and detection control measures when determining potential effects?": You must absolutely account for existing prevention and detection measures without which you cannot have meaningful assignment for the probability of occurrence (P), and/or the likelihood of detection (D).

"Similarly, when determining severity, do you discount end user impacts if you have a great downstream detection or upstream prevention?": The RPN calculation automatically does this for you.

Hope this helps.

Regards.
 
R

randomname

#3
Severity is the impact if it were to happen, independent of controls.

The boundaries of your analysis (internal, external) and a common concern. For example, harm to the patient is a no brainer. But how about impact on a medical provider, or calibration tech, etc.
 
R

randomname

#4
By the way, the impacts and boundaries should have been already discussed during the device risk assessment (hazards and harms) required by the risk management plan (ISO 14971).
 
J

Julison

#5
Hi,

Thank you for the replies.
However, based upon those replies I am still uncertain what the best answer is to the questions I have posed.

Question #1 was:
"Should we consider existing prevention and detection control measures when determining potential effects?":

Answer #1: You must absolutely account for existing prevention and detection measures without which you cannot have meaningful assignment for the probability of occurrence (P), and/or the likelihood of detection (D).

I think I may not have been clear enough in the question.
We do record failure modes, effects, causes and control measures.

The question I have is:

Do we record a potential end effect if downstream we have a control that will detect it with a high degree of certainty.

For instance. The process requirement could be to deposit a glucose sensor that is 1um thick. The failure mode could be that it is >1um thick or <1um thick or absent. Some of the effects could be local: Product fails at that step's inline QC, OR, End User: The customer (hospital) gets an inaccurate result.

IF the inline QC detection is VERY effective, should we even record the potential End User effect "The customer (hospital) gets an inaccurate result "?

Thanks again,

Julison
 
J

Julison

#6
Thanks Randomname.

Your answer was "Severity is the impact if it were to happen, independent of controls."

I think part of my problem is that our severity criteria are based upon how far reaching the impact of the failure mode reaches.

If something is caught at the step that it occurs it has lower severity than if it makes it to the next step or worse case the customer is impacted in a manner that creates harm.

So, our criteria force us to assess internal and external controls and as such we cannot assess the severity "independent of controls."

Not sure how to address this without challenging the company risk criteria.

Ideas???

Julison
 
R

randomname

#7
I would use the highest severity, since that is the actual risk. However, each failure mode could have multiple effects, with a different severity for each.
 

Eamon

Involved In Discussions
#9
Perhaps the following observation is obvious, or perhaps it bears suggesting.

It is often the case that the same failure mode has a greater likelihood of a lower severity effect, as well as a lesser likelihood of a higher severity effect. (This is without considering detectability, about which there may be similar dependencies and considerations.)

The way to document this would be to reproduce the same failure mode on more than one FMEA row, with each row possibly documenting a different effect, and with each row showing a different balance between the risk numbers. In such a case, the RPN on each row of the the "split" failure mode may be acceptable, but a single row combining the highest likelihood and the worst severity would be unreasonably high RPN.

I think this is a reasonable approach to take into account a common situation. I would be interested to know if this is commonly done, or there is an argument against taking this approach.

Eamon

Edit:

I have just realized that the likelihood primarily pertains to the occurrence of the failure mode, not to the occurrence of the effect, so my suggestion may not play well with the semantics of most FMEA methodologies. Nonetheless, there should be a way of capturing such analysis in an FMEA. How should it be done?
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
JoCam Failure to test Class I medical device to IEC 60601-1-11 IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2
N Medical Device Failure Rate as part of the Risk Management Report ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 10
Marc FDA: Software Failure Behind 24% of Last Year's Medical Device Recalls Other Medical Device and Orthopedic Related Topics 2
J 21 CFR 821 Medical Device Tracking Requirement 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
S Iraq Medical Device registration Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
R Medical Device Software Certification IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 1
D Medical Device Accessories Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 1
F Change to Formulation due to Reach (China Medical Device Regulations) China Medical Device Regulations 0
R Accelerated Aging - Creating test samples - Implantable medical device Question Other Medical Device Related Standards 4
T Clinical evaluation of a new medical device EU Medical Device Regulations 0
7 Iraq Medical Device Chemical Regulations Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
J UCLA extension Medical Device Engineering Program Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 0
Q Storing and developing SAMD (Software as a Medical Device) in the Cloud IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 2
I ISO 2233:2000 Question - Medical Device Shipping/Transportation Validation Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 1
R Identify Medical Device characterstics as Annex C of ISO 14971 Risk Management ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 5
O ANATEL certification of Medical Device Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
Ajit Basrur FDA News Harmonizing and Modernizing Regulation of Medical Device Quality Systems (7-2020) US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 0
A Legal Manufacturer Medical device US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2
S Looking for Quality Content to Build Medical Device Curriculum - Concept to Commercialization Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 4
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
A Legal Manufacturer of a medical device Vs Legal Manufacturer of MDSW EU Medical Device Regulations 7
T Loaded spring device - Active medical device? EU Medical Device Regulations 1
MDD_QNA Medical Device Software - Is a Help Button required? IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 1
H MDD Article 12 Labeling for Class IIa Medical Device - Please Advise EU Medical Device Regulations 3
J Does Pakistan Medical Device Import License allows parallel import? Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
K China Medical Device Labeling requirements - Language China Medical Device Regulations 3
F Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) Technical File Requirements Manufacturing and Related Processes 1
A Sample Agreement available for Outsourcing Medical Device Design activity? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
dgrainger Informational EU medical device website change from 'Growth' to 'Health and Food Safety' (6/2020) Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
B How to classify a medical device based on MDR? EU Medical Device Regulations 3
J Need for a cleanroom in the manufacture of a medical device for a clinical trial EU Medical Device Regulations 4
A Software as Medical Device (SaMD) definition and its applicability Other Medical Device and Orthopedic Related Topics 4
F Labelling requirements for a medical device containing fragrance allergens EU Medical Device Regulations 3
A Medical device Reporting : Good Faith Effort for Additional information Other US Medical Device Regulations 2
A Medical Device Vigilance decision tree for Japan for class 2 devices. Japan Medical Device Regulations 1
I How to classify a medical device based on FDA? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 3
S The US FDA requirements on Disposal of a medical device US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
Edward Reesor EU Authorized Representative for a Class I Medical Device CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 11
E IEC 60601-1 - Unearthed Medical Device Metal Parts IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 1
U Medical Device Design finalization testing ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
S FDA Requirements for Medical Device Label Reconciliation 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
J Medical Device Registration in the UAE MoH Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 2
JoCam Medical Device Distribution in the UK EU Medical Device Regulations 6
B FDA-Medical Device Reporting (MDR )procedure compliant with 21CFR section 803 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 0
R An indication that the device is a medical device (MDR, Annex 23.2q) - applicable for accessories? EU Medical Device Regulations 5
Stoic Are any medical device companies using the 2011 FDA process validation guidance instead of GHTF/SG3/N99-10:2004? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
W Direct to customer export of medical device (class I: prescription lenses + frame) US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2
J Validity / outcomes measure for custom made medical device ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
S Regulatory job in pharma vs. medical device US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 16
S Regulatory job in pharma vs. medical device CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 0

Similar threads

Top Bottom