Reason for determining no adverse effect on reworked product

N

newblues

#1
Hello everyone,

I work for medical device company in Japan.
I got to this wonderful web site searching for information. I found some relevant threads here, but they are not just what I'm looking for. So, please let me start a new thread.

Section 8.3 of ISO13845 requires documentation of adverse effect by rework on products.
When determining there's no adverse effect, you will state so on the rework procedure. At this time, are any reasons to determining "no adverse effect" must be documented? I mean, if the requirements in clause 8.3 includes documentation of REASON for determining there's no adverse effect or not. That is, if it will be a non-conformity when only stating like "no adverse effect".

Maybe in some occasion it would be good to document reasons for employees to understand the nature of the rework. However there are also cases where it's obvious no adverse effect.
For example, when manually removing foreign materials on the product as rework, you may agree in most cases it's clear there's no adverse effect on the product. In such a case to document reasons for determining no adverse effect is pointless. So, I'd like to have it just an option or recommendation to document reasons for determining no adverse effect.
Any thoughts?

Thank you.

newblues
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

somashekar

Staff member
Super Moderator
#2
Please look at some of the interacting processes as required by the ISO13485.
1. You shall establish documented requirements for risk management throughout product realization. Records of this shall be maintained.... (7.1)
2. Prior to rework approval determination of adverse effects of rework upon product shall be made and documented... (8.3)
3. The availability of documented procedures, documented requirements, work instructions ~~~ .... (7.5.1)
4. To review and approve documents for adequacy prior to issue ...(4.2.3)
Rework upon product is within product realization.
Your work instruction contents will be coming from the determinations of risk management. Your rework process work instruction hence will also be coming from a risk management. Risk management document is live and is always subject to review when new processes are to be made, like a rework process for example.
So determination of any adverse effects is a part of risk management within the product realization. You can change your view from 'No adverse effects' to a rating from your risk management practice that will indicate Nil or negligible risks.
A good amount of inputs to adverse effects of the rework upon product will come from the risk management records of the product realization itself.
You are the master of your risk management. So use all your information and resources and consult with medical device experts when you attempt risk management.
Think safety of patient and user ...
 
N

newblues

#3
Hi Somashekar,

I get your point. Determination of adverse effect on rework product is just a risk management.

Well, provided the determination is made in several ranks and if you say it's a negligible risk, how about the reason for determining so?
When the reason is not documented, can you take it as a non-conformity?

Rgds,

newblues
 

Ronen E

Problem Solver
Staff member
Moderator
#4
Hi Somashekar,

I get your point. Determination of adverse effect on rework product is just a risk management.

Well, provided the determination is made in several ranks and if you say it's a negligible risk, how about the reason for determining so?
When the reason is not documented, can you take it as a non-conformity?

Rgds,

newblues
Hi,

The risk management process defined by ISO 14971 is quite methodical in building and capturing the reasoning behind the evaluations made. If you follow it closely there should already be ample documentation of why a risk of adverse effects is acceptably low (or nil).

Cheers,
Ronen.
 

Mark Meer

Trusted Information Resource
#5
Hi newblues,

I'm also considering how to best approach this at the moment, to make our system more efficient. I was considering a "Rework Assessment" spreadsheet, that allows consideration of broader categories to be assessed. Each time a new rework is identified, a row is added.

So, to use your example, a row might be:

Rework: Remove foreign material using compressed air
Applicable Parts/Sub-Assemblies: Any plastic or metal parts
AE* Assessment: No effect. Compressed air does not affect any of the plastics or metals used.
Assessment By/Date: Jim Personnel, 2015-03-14
*AE = Adverse Effect

Now, each time this rework is done on any plastic or metal during assembly, the rework personnel need not document an assessment of any adverse effects, because it has already been done and documented.

Basically, the idea is to generalize adverse effect assessments to broader categories of rework, so they only have to be documented once.
 
N

newblues

#6
I totally agree with Ronen E's comment.
Determination of AE on reworked product should be done in risk management manner. Then the reason for determining no/low risk should be documented.

And, Mark Meer's idea is fantastic. I've had a similar idea, which is to state possible NC, rework procedure for each NC, determination of adverse effect etc on rework instructions. But Mark's is better.

Now I'm quite determined on how to document adverse effect when reworking.

However, the intention of my original question is "Not to document can be a non-conformity or not". In other words, will you judge it as a non conformity, if you are an auditor and find the reasons for determining no/low risk are not documented?
Probably you can recommend to do this in RM manner to auditee to improve their QMS, but can you say it a non-conformity?

Regards,

newblues
 

somashekar

Staff member
Super Moderator
#7
I totally agree with Ronen E's comment.
Determination of AE on reworked product should be done in risk management manner. Then the reason for determining no/low risk should be documented.

And, Mark Meer's idea is fantastic. I've had a similar idea, which is to state possible NC, rework procedure for each NC, determination of adverse effect etc on rework instructions. But Mark's is better.

Now I'm quite determined on how to document adverse effect when reworking.

However, the intention of my original question is "Not to document can be a non-conformity or not". In other words, will you judge it as a non conformity, if you are an auditor and find the reasons for determining no/low risk are not documented?
Probably you can recommend to do this in RM manner to auditee to improve their QMS, but can you say it a non-conformity?

Regards,

newblues
If you have not determined and documented the adverse effects of rework prior to doing the rework, then it is a NC for sure.
If you have, then the auditor cannot question the depth of your adverse effects assessment, unless it is so very superficial and saying that there are just no adverse effects at all.
Coming to the example from Mark Meer ...
AE* Assessment: No effect. Compressed air does not affect any of the plastics or metals used.
Make sure you have such air pressure limits set which is determined good to remove foreign material based on your own judgement and experience, and yet not damage or effect the other working parts that are subjected to such air pressure. Compressed air can be destructive otherwise. Such are the type of controls that one expects to see from determination of adverse effects of rework, within the risk management.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
W Major NCRs within AS9100 - What is the most frequent reason for Major NCRs? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 5
L Special Processes - Technical reason concerning torque - Anaerobic compounds Manufacturing and Related Processes 10
N GDP - Having to provide a reason when writing N/A? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
D Parts removed for troubleshooting reason EASA and JAA Aviation Standards and Requirements 2
F Reason a plane would have a runout applied and not a flatness callout Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 7
B The Reason and Effectiveness of Retention Document - CB Audit Results ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 3
hogheavenfarm Potential Employer Questions Reason for Leaving Career and Occupation Discussions 37
A Policies and Procedures are required but what is the reason? General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 16
P The reason why Small-to Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs) don't use Six Sigma Six Sigma 19
Jim Wynne Yet another reason not to join the ASQ (American Society for Quality) ASQ, ANAB, UKAS, IAF, IRCA, Exemplar Global and Related Organizations 166
Bev D Have we lost Reason with the presence of standards? Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 10
I Reason for pre-production machine/process capability studies / SPC during production Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 3
C 6061-T6 Aluminum - Any reason Heat Treat can't hit Minimum of RB/50? Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 12
MarilynJ6354 Procedure Numbering - Is there any reason we HAVE to number our procedures? Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 30
Jim Wynne Another reason why things always go wrong Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 14
J Any Reason to Save All These QS-9000 Standards QS-9000 - American Automotive Manufacturers Standard 6
T Scope and Purpose - For some reason cannot seem to write anything - ISO 9001 - 7.2.2 Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 8
Marc Clause 4.5 Retention of Reason for Change Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 0
A IATF 16949 4.3.1 - Determining the scope of the quality management system - supplemental IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 9
D ISO 9001:2015 4.3 Determining the Scope of the QMS ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 3
J Determining SPC tolerance Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 21
B Determining SAT Offsets vs TUS Offsets per SAE AMS 2750E AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 0
B Determining sample size for device sterility Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 3
D Determining of sample size for 'Operational Qualification' AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 3
R Question on determining defective units - I am not recording fixture to part rejected Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 5
S Clause 8.2.2 Determining the requirements for products and services ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
D Determining Calibration Frequency schedule for items used in production Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
C Determining if Maintenance Contractor is an External Service subject to ISO 9001 Clause 8.4 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 43
S AS9100D PEAR - Examples for organization's method for determining process results? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 5
I Determining Calibration Tolerance of a Measurement Device General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 2
J ISO 17025 Documented Procedure for 6.2.5 - Determining competency ISO 17025 related Discussions 4
V Determining FDA 820 (registration) vs ISO 13485 - Supplier gives us the kit ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
J ISO 9001 8.4.1 - Determining controls applied to externally provided processes ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8
E Determining what is good and what is bad can be subjective - when is it a quality issue? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
F Determining what type of scrap to include in my internal PPM calculation Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 5
M Determining number of employees within the "Scope" of the QMS ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
A Determining the Scope of the QMS during Stage 1? Registrars and Notified Bodies 11
W Minor Audit Nonconformance Against Determining the scope of QMS IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 12
D Determining Critical Components for conformity with IEC 60601-1 IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 21
Q ISO 9001, section 4.3 Determining the scope of our QMS ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
R Determining Sample Size for Medical Device Component Validation Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 0
A What does 8.2.2.1, Determining the requirements related to products and services,mean IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
A Determining Retention Period for Medical Device QMS documents Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 5
S Surveillance Sampling Test - Determining Sample Size Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 5
F ISO 9001:2015 4.3 - Determining the scope of the quality management system ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
B Standards Needed In House - Determining what standards are applicable Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 3
W Determining Medical Device Classification in Mexico Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 5
K Determining Effect of Failure without a DFMEA (Design FMEA) FMEA and Control Plans 1
W Determining the Status and Importance of the Processes and Areas to be Audited Internal Auditing 7
T Determining Customer Requirements for the US Postal Service (USPS) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4

Similar threads

Top Bottom