Managing validation document lifecycles and deliverables can be error-prone and time-consuming. Which leads to the question: "Can paperless validation be a reality?"
Join us for our Green Validation Webinar on Tuesday, February 24th, at 12:00pm Eastern (9:00am Pacific) as Valarie King-Bailey, CEO of OnShore Technology Group, discusses effectively managing validation processes and documentation in a consistent and green manner.
This session will cover the following topics regarding ERP validation:
- Initiating the validation activities early in an ERP project.
- Eliminating paper documentation and slow approval processes.
- Reducing time to completion by 50%.
Learn how to ensure compliance, streamline validation, and reduce costs by registering now for this webinar!
And then take a look at the other upcoming sessions we have in our Mastering Compliance and Innovation Life Sciences Webinar Series.
Merit Solutions and OnShore Technology Group are excited to launch a new monthly Life Sciences Executive Webinar Series titled "Mastering Compliance and Innovation”. This series will identify ways Life Sciences organizations can excel beyond the basics and leverage innovative technologies to achieve continuous improvement and global success.
Continue reading "Life Sciences Executive Webinar Series - "Mastering Compliance and Innovation""
There are significant challenges to meet the regulatory requirements to sell products globally. It is necessary to be audited by regulators from these countries or by an accredited independent group. In some cases, countries will not accept a report that was generated for another jurisdiction. For some companies this can mean subjecting to many inspections and for international regulator’s inspectors to rack up the miles. This can become expensive and also slow the process of new product introduction.
To address this issue some regulatory authorities are developing a program to allow a single inspection team from a recognized auditing organization to satisfy the requirements of the participating countries. The Medical Device Single Audit Program (MDSAP) is in a pilot phase. This has the potential to be a win-win for both regulators and manufacturers as they can utilize their resources more efficiently.
Continue reading "MDSAP: Another Attempt at a One Size Fits All Audit"
Quality compliance is never a static concern. With changes in programs and new guidance documents it may feel like trying to hit a moving target. During online discussions, many device manufacturers indicated that their areas of biggest concern were inspections, followed by product recalls, warning letters, UDI implementation and CAPA. Clearly, no one is alone in their concerns.
Continue reading "What Keeps You Up at Night? 2014 in Review for Medical Device Companies"
In the US, there are two regulatory processes used to obtain marketing clearance for a device. 510(k) is a type of premarket submission where there is a substantially equivalent predicate device. Without this comparison, the submission would require a PMA (Premarket Approval). This process applies to most class II devices. The submission must demonstrate the same safety and effectiveness characteristics of the predicate device. A successful submission results in the permission to distribute and sell. A PMA requires evidence from controlled trials to prove the safety and effectiveness of the device.
The submission process is challenging and it changes periodically so it is important to keep current. In December, the FDA issued draft guidance on how it tracks clearances that change ownership. This can happen when a product or company is divested to another. The FDA receives notification of this change but difficulties can sometimes arise when trying to trace the history. The electronic registry developed in 2012 facilitates this tracking. Regardless of the past ownership, there remain key issues to focus on when preparing the submission.
Continue reading "510(k) Clearance Without the Snags"
It seems with every key stroke, data is collected and stored by a third party. This huge amount of information may be a treasure trove for companies to learn more about the effectiveness of a treatment or the performance of a device. Some say it holds great potential for improving patient care. But like most big data stockpiles, others become squeamish at the thought of alternate uses for the data.
Continue reading "Individualized Care, Big Data and Privacy"
When the FDA warns of further enforcement, it is not just an attempt to intimidate. There are teeth behind this procedure and companies need to stand up and take notice. Ignoring or excessively delaying a response will not make it go away, the ramifications will only increase.
Continue reading "When it Becomes Criminal"
Continuing improvement of the 510(k) process took shape in late 2012. Medical device companies have been frustrated by the length of time it takes the FDA to review submissions. The agency believed that the state of some of the submissions was a contributing factor.
Enter the Refuse to Accept policy (RTA).
Continue reading "The Road to Clearance - Avoiding Refusal"
E-Health services and wireless, wearable devices are spawning new products regularly. Last year monitoring devices grossed $2.9 million and is expected to grow to $17.1 million over the next five years. There is increasing demand for expanding the old point of care paradigm from the traditional hospital/doctor’s office setting to a more mobile medical environment. With this expansion, come new challenges with compatibility, wireless performance, security and compliance with the somewhat fledgling regulations.
Continue reading "E-Health Services: The New Boon"
Last year the FDA issued a draft guidance to clarify the difference between a recall and a product enhancement. Only voluntary recalls are in scope and whether they are performed by the manufacturer or at the request of the FDA is irrelevant. The difference is important as a recall requires the submission of a correction and removal report to the FDA. These reports become part of public record and thus may not put the company in a positive light. What may be considered recalls can include updates to instructions or changes to components or labeling.
Continue reading "Recalling the Difference"