Using Complaint Rate to Update FMEA P.O.C

#1
I am looking for some information and guidance on how to properly analyze a need to update an FMEA POC based on the rate of complaints received.

My specific situation at the moment is that I have a complaint lodged that relates to an identified risk. The risk was assigned a severity of 2 with a POC of 2. A 2 POC equates to a failure rate >.01% but <=.1%. With this complaint we now have 2 related complaints our of 695 recorded uses of our device. This equates to a 0.29% rate of failure(POC of 3).

I am currently debating internally whether 695 uses is a significant sample size and a change to our FMEA should be implemented. The 695 uses are single use devices, and the lowest out of 4 total product lines. The arguement against an update has been that even 1 complaint for this product line is over many of our POCs as most are a 2 or 1 estimation.

Is there enough evidence and trend to justify revising the FMEA and ultimately generating a CAPA for Risk mitigation based on 2 complaints?
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Staff member
Super Moderator
#2
you should never let data over rule your optimistic guesses...:notme:

seriously, 695 is more than sufficient. It is certainly more accurate than the pro forma guess at occurrence.

human beings are hopelessly inept at guessing the occurrence rate. An example I use in class is the hydraulic loss of United Airlines flight 232 (the Sioux City crash). The odds of an event causing the loss of all redundant hydraulic systems was estimated at 1 in a billion by engineers who are way smarter than me. Prior to flight 232 there were THREE similar events of multiple hydraulic system loss and the 'fmea' was NEVER updated, because, well it was a 1 in a billion chance. I dont' know what the 'billion' referred to, planes, flights, etc. but there were certainly not a billion of any of those things between the 3 occurences... In fact when the pilots tried to get technical assistance on how to fly the plane they were repeatedly told that it was impossible for them to have lost all hydraulics!

you now have data - use it.
 

Ronen E

Problem Solver
Staff member
Moderator
#3
I have nothing important to say about the statistics, but why do you (automatically?) conclude that a revision of the POC necessitates intiating a CA? Is it required in your SOP? Is the risk now unacceptable?
 
Last edited:

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Staff member
Super Moderator
#4
You make a good point. I was addressing the question from a general perspective. At a severity of 2 I would like have two questions: if the severity really is 2 why would you need a capa or any other mitigation? A 2 severity is very low. Which begs the second question: why would you even get 2 complaints in 695 uses for a severity 2 failure??? Are you sure you have the severity graded correctly?
 
#5
You make a good point. I was addressing the question from a general perspective. At a severity of 2 I would like have two questions: if the severity really is 2 why would you need a capa or any other mitigation? A 2 severity is very low. Which begs the second question: why would you even get 2 complaints in 695 uses for a severity 2 failure??? Are you sure you have the severity graded correctly?
A level 2 severity per our SOP is described as "Low - Results in temporary injury or impairment not requiring professional medical intervention / no injury or impairment but malfunction may require additional surgery time". Both of these related complaints fit this description and have resulted in additional surgery time.

A revision from POC 2 to 3 based on complaint history will maintain our overall moderate risk level; however, a Sev 2 and POC 2 was originally mitigated to try and decrease the risk. This resulted in a Sev 2 POC 2 being allocated but determined the risk could not be decreased further. Now we are increasing the POC to 3 and there for need to generate a CAPA to address the heightened moderate risk level. (Reason for going right to CAPA from FMEA revision).
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M Using a Complaint Management Software (Medical Device companies) 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
Y We found out we have been using a equipment without validation for past 4 years Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 6
D Using Laboratory Notebooks in R&D and Design and Development ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
S Work performed in Canada on US patients using US device Canada Medical Device Regulations 1
S Is using ANSI/ASQ Z1.4-2008 the correct sampling plan to determine Pass/Fail of Apparel measurements? AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 4
A What are the pros and cons of using an audit software for internal auditing? General Auditing Discussions 4
Tagin Evaluating nonconformances for escalation using Bayesian methods? Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 2
D Using non-conforming components even though the final assembly is conforming? Manufacturing and Related Processes 5
B Using Unreleased Documents & Process Maps for Internal Audit purposes ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 12
R Clause 7.7 Replicate, Recalibration and Intermediate checks using Artifact ISO 17025 related Discussions 1
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
B Unit of Use DI (Device Identifier) - Products using the same device US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 0
A Using Arduino based sensors for Poke-Yoke Manufacturing and Related Processes 6
M Using your Manufacturer's ISO certification ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
Ed Panek Adverse Event Clinical Trial using a 510K approved Device Other US Medical Device Regulations 6
B Using non CE parts in a machine CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 1
G Gauge R&R on multiple dimensions using 3D measurement system Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 6
A Hospital IT expectations for connected medical device using WIFI Medical Information Technology, Medical Software and Health Informatics 0
Proud Liberal Cp / Cpk on position using multiple MMC bonuses Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 2
B Using external FDA and ISO 13485 audit as internal audit Internal Auditing 6
D Using "Particle Size Standard" templates as gauges - How to avoid giving a gauge # while using for process control? General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 2
J Class 1 Medical Device - Using a UPC over the UDI? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 0
I Reducing CE marking cost using manufacturer test reports CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 5
CPhelan Using clinical trial safety data for evidence for CE marking EU Medical Device Regulations 7
M Accredited Calibration Sevice Provider using computerized system to issue calibration certificate Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 3
M Accredited Calibration Sevice Provider using computerized system to issue calibration certificate General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 2
M Raw stock material testing discrepancy using an XRF (x-ray fluorescence) analyzer Manufacturing and Related Processes 7
Z Using FMEA for Knowledge Management FMEA and Control Plans 6
Sidney Vianna NASA to Develop a Novel Approach for All-Electric Aircraft Using Cryogenic Liquid Hydrogen as Energy Storage World News 2
S How many of you are using Robotic process automation for calibration lab management? ISO 17025 related Discussions 0
J Including Repeats in DoE using Minitab Using Minitab Software 5
S Legal Manufacturer FDA Reporting Obligations for Using New Contract Sterilization Site Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
John Predmore What size pinhole can be reliably detected using visual inspection? Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 7
D I'm new in IMDS special using the IMDS application Manufacturing and Related Processes 8
John Broomfield Workplace by Facebook - Any other organizations using this collaborative tool? Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 0
I Flatness - Rectangular part using the three jack method Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 10
JoshuaFroud How important is using the "correct" GMDN? Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 12
A Overkill? Using the 3L5W tool on non-conformities Nonconformance and Corrective Action 3
M GD&T tolerance or band? Using a symbol like parallelism // Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 8
B Informational Expanded Gage R&R Analysis using Minitab Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 18
S Evaluating the possibilities of using qmswrapper or greenlightguru Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 4
P Is it possible to make an educated decision using a very very small sample size? Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 3
V Using K-Factor(Tolerance Interval) Analysis for Design Verification Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 3
O Which is better - Quietly quit using a supplier or tell supplier? Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 11
A Capability Analysis for Packaging Seal Strength with spec. >0.1 Kgf using Minitab Using Minitab Software 6
J Layered Process Audits using Kamishibai Board Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 3
Q How can you justify using a more accurate Pin Gage class? General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 16
S Basic Dimension W/O using FCF Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 4
G How to compute or estimate a micrometer or caliper flatness using optical flat General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 2
rob73 Requirement for independent certification of device using an ISO 17025 laboratory EU Medical Device Regulations 2

Similar threads

Top Bottom