Single Use Devices - Surgeon must have backup in stock, just in case?

peter_traina

Starting to get Involved
#1
Has anyone ever experienced this??

We manufacture a Single Use Laproscopic Surgical Device that, if the Surgeon uses incorrectly, can be damaged. The fix is to just grab another one... and the problem is, that if they don't have a backup device, they are unable to finish the procedure! This is a potentially a very serious issue.

So, as the Manufacturer, is there any requirement that we inform them of the need to carry a backup device? Should we place it in our FMEA / Risk Docs?

Hopefully, someone out there has been here?? Thanks!
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
M

MIREGMGR

#4
the problem is, that if they don't have a backup device, they are unable to finish the procedure! This is a potentially a very serious issue.

So, as the Manufacturer, is there any requirement that we inform them of the need to carry a backup device? Should we place it in our FMEA / Risk Docs?
"Requirement" as such, i.e. some sort of mandate that you can't buy a single unit because you have to have a spare at all times: no.

But certainly it makes sense for you to inform in a clear manner.

The risk from not informing with sufficient clarity, it seems to me, is less from the point of view of the patient than the risk from the end user using the device incorrectly, thereby resulting in its failure.
 

RA Guy

Involved In Discussions
#5
Labeling is of course the last resort in risk mitigation and its effectiveness is arguable when used to communicate pre-emptive measures (i.e., if you don't fully read and take it to heart well prior to use, it will not be effective). Prominence and placement is key to this type of communication.

I would agree adding the reference to a backup may be helpful. At the very least it covers your bases in terms of making the clinicians think about their protocol and including a backup.

The other thing that I would consider (you likely already have) is ensuring that the warning was implemented as a true last resort after a very robust/exhaustive DFMEA that includes as many user driven failure modes as reasonable. Otherwise due diliegence is not complete as you have already recognized use error as a cricital risk. Hopefully you have a number of design based mitigations already in place.
 
M

MIREGMGR

#6
There are limits to analysis of risk, and what we can do to guide clinicians away from risk. I don't think we want to warn them not to use an available medical device solely because medical devices aren't always available.

Many medical device types involve a risk related to non-availability in the event of damage or failure, unless a backup is ready. Think of MRI systems, surgical tables, etc. The list might not be endless, but it's long. Yet many care providers create vast amounts of healthcare benefit using single resources for which no immediate backup exists. For certain medical specialties and at certain times, the doctor him- or herself is a unique resource for which a risk would be created in the event of unplanned unavailability, yet that doesn't keep unique doctors from practicing the medical arts.

It would be a morass to determine via risk analysis that a device presents a risk specifically because its care provision function is uniquely clinically effective and therefore if it should become unavailable, the lack of provision of that care would amount to harm.
 

peter_traina

Starting to get Involved
#7
Labeling is of course the last resort in risk mitigation and its effectiveness is arguable when used to communicate pre-emptive measures (i.e., if you don't fully read and take it to heart well prior to use, it will not be effective). Prominence and placement is key to this type of communication.

I would agree adding the reference to a backup may be helpful. At the very least it covers your bases in terms of making the clinicians think about their protocol and including a backup.

The other thing that I would consider (you likely already have) is ensuring that the warning was implemented as a true last resort after a very robust/exhaustive DFMEA that includes as many user driven failure modes as reasonable. Otherwise due diliegence is not complete as you have already recognized use error as a cricital risk. Hopefully you have a number of design based mitigations already in place.
The company governance (the big shots)...
a.) Do not believe in filing MDR's ever...
b.) Understand the risk of not having a backup device but, minimize it totally. We have absolutely nothing in our DFMEA nor in our IFU.

They have no interest in putting it in either, stating that Hospital protocol ensures that they have backups of everything!

A little story about hospitals and Back-Up Devices...
When my 11 lb. son was born, he was stuck in the birth canal long enough for the Doc to be extremely upset and scared...and the reason...

There are two different suction "caps" that they suction onto the baby's head, in order to have a "handle" with which to pull him/her out. One cap is large and blue, the other is smaller and pink! Obviously the blue larger one is for bigger babies (blue is for boys) and the pink smaller one is for girls...
Anyway, when my son was born, all that was 'on the shelf' was a pink cap, no blue! The pink wouldn't fit on the 11 lb. baby and they couldn't get him out of the birth canal!! They finally wound up using the "giant salad tongs", or what they refered to as the foreceps... the same ones they use in abortions. All this because they didn't have a backup on the shelf!!
NOTE: Although he was immediately rushed to the intensive care (Mom didn't even get to hold him) with a heart rate of @ 140 bpm and an Apgar score that was near stillborn, he eventually was fine, although his head was lopsided (from the "giant salad tongs") until he grew out of it @ 4 yrs old...made for some really crummy baby pics!! No, we didn't sue...
 

peter_traina

Starting to get Involved
#8
There are limits to analysis of risk, and what we can do to guide clinicians away from risk. I don't think we want to warn them not to use an available medical device solely because medical devices aren't always available.

Many medical device types involve a risk related to non-availability in the event of damage or failure, unless a backup is ready. Think of MRI systems, surgical tables, etc. The list might not be endless, but it's long. Yet many care providers create vast amounts of healthcare benefit using single resources for which no immediate backup exists. For certain medical specialties and at certain times, the doctor him- or herself is a unique resource for which a risk would be created in the event of unplanned unavailability, yet that doesn't keep unique doctors from practicing the medical arts.

It would be a morass to determine via risk analysis that a device presents a risk specifically because its care provision function is uniquely clinically effective and therefore if it should become unavailable, the lack of provision of that care would amount to harm.

Very good!:applause:
That is what my first thought was and I agree with you whole heartedly......except...........................

When that failure mode becomes a trend... In other words, if every third procedure, the surgeon was unavailable, then you would need to list, warn and mitigate such a risk... Right??!!
Bottom line, we need to fix the device such that it doesn't fail before, DURING, or after, the procedure!
 
M

MIREGMGR

#9
Bottom line, we need to fix the device such that it doesn't fail before, DURING, or after, the procedure!
Absolutely. I'm not in any way absolving us from trying hard to find ways to keep user mistakes, or any other product, user or environmental characteristic, or "normal" use consequences from creating effects-of-unavailability.
 

Ronen E

Problem Solver
Staff member
Moderator
#10
Has anyone ever experienced this??

We manufacture a Single Use Laproscopic Surgical Device that, if the Surgeon uses incorrectly, can be damaged. The fix is to just grab another one... and the problem is, that if they don't have a backup device, they are unable to finish the procedure! This is a potentially a very serious issue.

So, as the Manufacturer, is there any requirement that we inform them of the need to carry a backup device? Should we place it in our FMEA / Risk Docs?

Hopefully, someone out there has been here?? Thanks!
Hi,

Why limit the discussion to holding a backup and/or warning in the IFU?

IMO, you've identified a risk and now it's time to mitigate it. There are many ways to do so, improving the design and training users are two of them.

Cheers,
Ronen.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N Where to find Regulations for Reprocessing and Reuse of Single-Use Devices Other Medical Device Related Standards 2
F UDI - Unit of Use and Class I, single-use devices EU Medical Device Regulations 4
K Does company who manufacture but does not design or carry out clinical trials is responsible for CE marking for single use medical devices? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
M Informational EU draft act – Single-use medical devices – safety and performance requirements for reprocessing Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
G Single DFU for multiple medical devices in one box Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
bio_subbu Indian government issues guidance on Grouping Medical Devices in a Single Submission Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 1
S IEC 60601-1 - Label Physical Requirements for Disposable (Single Use) Medical Devices IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 5
M Customer Requirements for Single Use Medical Devices Other Medical Device and Orthopedic Related Topics 3
M Re-Use of "Single Use Only" Medical Devices EU Medical Device Regulations 5
A Materials for Single Use Surgical Devices with Metal and Plastic Components ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 12
Ajit Basrur Manufacturing of sterile single use disposable devices in a single plant? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
bio_subbu SCENIHR adopts opinion on reprocessing Single Use Devices (SUD) EU Medical Device Regulations 2
G Assigned value for fixed single-value devices General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 8
S DHF/DMR/MDF for a software-only, cloud-based, single-instance device Medical Information Technology, Medical Software and Health Informatics 2
N Is this a single integral drug device combination product EU MDR CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 1
R CND nomenclature for single use instruments CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 1
P Violation of CE mark - Re-use of single-use Products CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 2
M What are the basics of Medical Device Single Audit Program (MDSAP)? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 7
D SINGLE FAULT CONDITION, short circuit and open circuit of any component (IEC 60601-1 3.1) IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 9
shimonv Single lot release for sterile packaging 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 3
T Single Fault Condition IEC 60601 Clause 8.7.1 shorting Cr/Cl in Patient Applied Part IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 7
D Partial FAI - AS9102 - One single drawing has 10 part numbers AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 5
Sidney Vianna Informational IAF and ILAC Seek Contractor for Establishment of a Single International Organization for Accreditation ASQ, ANAB, UKAS, IAF, IRCA, Exemplar Global and Related Organizations 2
A Single use non-sterile syringe used in the oral cavity - Laboratory test advice US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 7
D How to get EUDAMED Single Registration Number (SRN) EU Medical Device Regulations 17
CycleMike GD&T - Hole pattern - Print (attached) has a single Datum Reference Frame Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 2
F 2017/745 Article 31 Single Registration Number Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 5
Q IATF rule for single site - Ingots from scrap metal recycling company IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 0
R Supplier Controls we can place on Single-Source Suppliers ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
R Critical suppliers (Definition of) and MDSAP (Medical Device Single Audit Program) ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 15
A Touch current in single fault conditions test and earth leakage current in normal conditions test, are they really different tests? IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 8
Ed Panek Can a single supplier fit two or more categories for risk? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
T No Defined Shelf Life/Expiration Date - Disposable single-use, non-invasive, non-sterile Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 2
F Reprocessing or refurbishing? Single Use Medical Device CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 0
S How to make Single Sign On (SSO) Comply e-sig requirements? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
E Sample size for design verification of variable in single use device Design and Development of Products and Processes 20
Ed Panek Sensitive Supplier Issue - Single source supplier ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
M Medical Device News Health Canada - Medical Device Single Audit Program (MDSAP) Transition Plan Canada Medical Device Regulations 2
A ISO 2859 Single Sampling - Clarification regarding the sampling table Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 4
F Marketing a single medical device with multiple indications Other US Medical Device Regulations 4
G IEC 61010 - Single Fault Condition - Protective Impedance Implementation IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 1
T Definition Sole source VS. Single Source - Definitions Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations Listed Alphabetically 2
Edward Reesor MDSAP (Medical Device Single Audit Program) Costs Canada Medical Device Regulations 7
Mikey324 GR&R - Little to no part to part variation in single part number Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 14
R How many Corrective Action Request can be Issued by DCMA for a single issue? Nonconformance and Corrective Action 2
I Label Expiration Date - Single Use Combination Medical Device EU Medical Device Regulations 2
M What are Single Fault Conditions and how to test - IEC 80601-2-13 Other Medical Device Related Standards 0
M Merge Technical File, DMR, and Device File into a single document? Other Medical Device and Orthopedic Related Topics 3
P Single Use Disposable Dental Syringe - CE Marking Advice EU Medical Device Regulations 4
E Single Fault Condition Simulation IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2

Similar threads

Top Bottom