Regulatory Open Forum

 View Only
Expand all | Collapse all

EU Technical Files

  • 1.  EU Technical Files

    Posted 23-Jun-2014 09:07
    Does anyone have a suggestion and/or procedure used to update product technical files?  I am looking to create some sort of periodic review instead of waiting to update for a specific change (ie., labeling or design change).

    -------------------------------------------
    Isis Spencer
    Manager, Regulatory Affairs
    Fujirebio Diagnostics, Inc
    Malvern PA
    United States
    -------------------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: EU Technical Files

    Posted 24-Jun-2014 12:05
    Hi Isis -

    Based on input from various Notified Bodies (at several companies), my experience is that TFs/Design Dossiers should be reviewed and updated, at minimum, every 24 months.  The common practice I've encountered is that the procedure states the 24 month minimum and requires a review of any TF that has not been updated due to some trigger (labeling, design change, etc.) within that time period.  You can either require that the file be updated at that time, to create the new baseline date, or you can create a form that documents the review (date, reviewed by, etc.) that you append to the TF.  If you have a number of TFs/Design Dossiers that are infrequently changed, you can set up a review/update schedule that prevents all of them from coming due at the same time.  If you give yourself a broad window for each file, you can include that schedule in your procedure - for instance, indicating that files X, Y, and Z are reviewed/updated calendar Q1, and files A, B, and C are reviewed/updated calendar Q2.  If you have many files, you can split them further by indicating that some will be updated during odd-numbered years and others will updated during even-numbered years.

    -------------------------------------------
    Laurie Cartwright
    Senior Manager II, Regulatory Affairs
    Smith & Nephew (formerly ArthroCare Corporation)
    Irvine CA
    United States
    -------------------------------------------








  • 3.  RE: EU Technical Files

    Posted 25-Jun-2014 07:25
    Hello all,

    What would you say the best practice is for where documents such as tech files/ERVCs should be kept?  In my history these documents were considered design files and were reviewed with any changes made to a device.  Additonaly, we would review them every 24 months at minimum.  

    Kind regards,


    -------------------------------------------
    Kolleen Tener
    Mason OH
    United States
    -------------------------------------------




  • 4.  RE: EU Technical Files

    Posted 26-Jun-2014 09:06
    In order to confirm your device is still "state of the art" you should be conducting a PMS review every 1-2 years.  During that review, you could include a statement to the effect of "the technical file has been reviewed and updates are/are not required at this time.....". 

    The PMS review then gets noted in the TF and you have satisfied the 1-2 year review requirements (assuming there haven't been any major changes outside the PMS review).

    As for where TF's are kept, they should be readily available for review by the Notified Body at the legal manufacturer's facility (or their EC Rep if located outside the EU).  If the files are electronic this isn't a problem.  If they are paper, you need copies in both locations.

    -------------------------------------------
    Kellen Hills
    RA/QA Consultant
    Orchid Design
    Memphis TN
    United States
    -------------------------------------------




  • 5.  RE: EU Technical Files

    Posted 26-Jun-2014 09:27

    Thank you for the response.  I was more curious as to what the best known practice is for keeping these files.  Are they normally kept with Engineering/Document Controls etc. I know they need to be reviewed by a minimum time requirement, but overall, the best practice as to where those types of documents should be kept is what I am questioning.  I am under he impression that these are design files and should be kept in Engineering. 
    Is this the best practice?

    Kind regards,

    -------------------------------------------
    Kolleen Tener
    Regulatory Compliance Manager
    Zimmer Surgical, Inc.
    -------------------------------------------




  • 6.  RE: EU Technical Files

    Posted 27-Jun-2014 12:11
    Hi Kolleen -

    Everywhere that I have worked, Regulatory Affairs is responsible for the creation and maintenance of Technical Files and Design Dossiers.  These documents are essentially regulatory submissions, one could argue they are the EU equivalent to 510(k)s and PMAs, therefore, all hard copy TFs/DDs have been kept in Regulatory Affairs, always under Regulatory control.  Personally, I wouldn't want it any other way - if I'm responsible for generating and maintaining it, I want it under my direct supervision.  When the TF/DD can be stored and maintained in an electronic document control system, then we have done that - but they are still under the control of Regulatory Affairs.

    Hope this helps.

    -------------------------------------------
    Laurie Cartwright
    Senior Manager II, Regulatory Affairs
    Smith & Nephew (formerly ArthroCare Corporation)
    Irvine CA
    United States
    -------------------------------------------




  • 7.  RE: EU Technical Files

    Posted 29-Jun-2014 02:54
    I would advocate a more regular review if possible as two years worth of data can be an enormous task. A process that seems to work well is that you take a risk based, stage review. By that I mean you consider your PMS data and then answer questions such as 'Has the manufacturing process changed? Have the regulations changed? Have our critical suppliers changed? Have out test specs changed? Are out internal NCs and complaints at acceptable levels? If everything is OK, then defer the full review for a further year. If any questions indicate that changes may have occured, then do a more in depth review. In response to control of such documentation, I have only seen this successfully managed by RA/QA personnel. Without a technical understanding of the regulatory risk, it is difficult to see how considered decisions on updating such information can be assured. Hope this helps

    -------------------------------------------
    Teresa Perry
    BSI
    Hedge End
    United Kingdom
    -------------------------------------------




  • 8.  RE: EU Technical Files

    Posted 30-Jun-2014 05:07
    Thank you, that is helpful.  However, everywhere I've worked in the past has kept it with Engineering.  Ideally, because the ERVCs would be looked at when they are making design changes.  Don't get me wrong, it is still up to Regulatory to review these documents and ensure that they are correctly organized etc.   I have also had a BSI representative tell me they beleive they should be kept with Engineering, so hence my confusion.   I'm not opposed to it either way,  but generally, products seem to outway Regulatory personel so I'm not sure where the connection would be in the Quality System as for Regulatory to manage it.



    -------------------------------------------
    Kolleen Tener
    Regulatory Compliance Manager
    Zimmer Surgical, Inc.
    United States
    -------------------------------------------




  • 9.  RE: EU Technical Files

    Posted 01-Jul-2014 03:52
    Hello, we keep all the documents of the technical file in a common database and most of the documents are owned by engineering (they are the authors and they have the control of the review). The QA/RA department controls the STED list, which is a list of a subset of the documents needed for regulatory purposes. The QA/RA department knows therefore the document IDs, controls the completeness of the STED and can build at any moment the regulatory dossier with the latest review of the needed documents.

    Best regards

    -------------------------------------------
    Caterina Brusasco
    Compliance Manager
    IBA
    Louvain La Neuve
    Belgium
    -------------------------------------------




  • 10.  RE: EU Technical Files

    Posted 01-Jul-2014 08:51

    In the companies I have worked in the Tech Files were kept under lock and key by Doc Control, who reported to Quality. Any updates to the documentation was added to the electronic copy of the file, and then the paper was printed out and filed in the locked drawer in the appropriate Tech file binder. When either engineering or regulatory needed the documentation is was current, and they had to check out the binder if they wanted to take the paper copy. If someone inadvertently took something out of the file and forgot to put it back the e-copy was complete. I e-copy was also always available for review. Win-win for everyone.
    -------------------------------------------
    Paula Bojsen
    Global Regulatory Compliance Manager
    Holland MI
    United States
    -------------------------------------------




  • 11.  RE: EU Technical Files

    Posted 02-Jul-2014 09:40
    I find this discussion very interesting.  I do hope Isis got the information she needed before we wandered off. :)

    I am now thinking that the difference in approaches may be more related to differences in the way documents are handled generally within the company, and perhaps also in the organizational structure from company to company, than to differences among notified bodies .  It seems that some companies manage documents centrally, as part of a Document Control function, for the entire company, while at other companies, documents are managed by one department or another, primarily to address the needs of that department?

    My experience is more in line with Caterina's and Paula's, where the situation Paula describes is more "old school," which is to say, paper-based, and Caterina's sounds more like the way things are trending, which is to say, electronic.  Paula describes the situation exactly at the start-up I referred to in another comment, while Caterina describes the direction in which I expected things to have evolved during my regulatory hiatus.  Laurie and others seem to be managing their documentation in a somewhat different environment?

    I am reminded that neither the QSR nor ISO 13485 require a centralized repository for or centralized management of all controlled documents (paper or electronic) of the type described by Paula and Caterina. I am now thinking that not all companies follow this model. So now I am wondering what different companies do with controlled documents once they have been approved/released, and also, in companies where RA maintains tech files and design dossiers, whether some or all of the documents that make up the tech files and design dossiers maintained by RA are also maintained elsewhere (eg, "Document Control" or "Engineering"), or if RA is the sole repository for all of the documents in the tech files and design dossiers?



    -------------------------------------------
    Julie Omohundro RAC
    Durham NC
    United States
    -------------------------------------------



  • 12.  RE: EU Technical Files

    Posted 03-Jul-2014 12:23
    Julie -

    All of the companies for which I've worked use centralized document control system - they used to be paper systems, but over the past 10 or so years they've become electronic systems (with varying levels of effectiveness).  At my current position, up until the past year, while all of the documents to which the TF/DD "points" were kept in document control and printed only upon request, the "Part A" document was maintained solely by Regulatory Affairs and was approved only in hard-copy (including the Declarations of Conformity).  We have changed that practice so that the "Part A" document is now also controlled through our document control system - with RA solely responsible for the content and maintenance of those documents.  When a paper copy of a TF/DD is called for, we (RA) are responsible for pulling that together - it's a lengthy and tedious process because we have to access and print every document referenced in "Part A" and the Essential Requirements Matrix - this is where my comments about being able to produce it quickly come in, as a more recent auditor tried to put forth that our pointer documents were not adequate, but our other auditor said that it was an appropriate way for us to manage the files. I'm not sure what the implication of the first auditor's comment might be - whether he meant that he wanted us to maintain full hard copies - because the issue was nipped in the bud.

    -------------------------------------------
    Laurie Cartwright
    Senior Manager II, Regulatory Affairs
    Smith & Nephew (formerly ArthroCare Corporation)
    Irvine CA
    United States
    -------------------------------------------




  • 13.  RE: EU Technical Files

    Posted 07-Jul-2014 22:10
    Laurie, it looks like this topic petered out over the holiday weekend, but I still wanted to say thanks for the response.  I always find it interesting to learn how different companies do things...and how different auditors think they should be doing them!

    I can see where the challenge of pulling together a paper copy quickly can be more or less challenging from company to company and device to device, depending on the type of device, the amount of information available to support it, and internal systems and technologies.

    -------------------------------------------
    Julie Omohundro RAC
    Durham NC
    United States
    -------------------------------------------




  • 14.  RE: EU Technical Files

    Posted 07-Jul-2014 09:28
    Julie, I am not sure what you're saying about "old school." To clarify, our Technical Files are all electronic, with a paper copy. The paper copy is primarily for auditing purposes, and is kept current by document control when any of the documents get revised. I don't see that as being old school. So far, auditors have not requested access to the electronic copy. If our Notified Body or a Competent Authority needed the TF it's all compiled and ready to go in the electronic version.

    Documentation practices can be a competitive advantage if you do it right. Otherwise, it can be a financial and resource drain on the company.

    -------------------------------------------
    Paula Bojsen
    Global Regulatory Compliance Manager
    Holland MI
    United States
    -------------------------------------------




  • 15.  RE: EU Technical Files

    Posted 09-Jul-2014 09:03
    By "old school," I mean paper and, by "new school," I mean electronic.

    Paper is pretty much by definition the "old school," because it is much older than electronic.  The human race has had two thousand years to figure out how to manage paper documents.  (And counting, lol.) We've only had a few decades to struggle with electronic.

    In the 70s, every office was "supposed to" have gone paperless by the end of the last century.  Of course, when Xerox introduced the first copier in 1949, no office was "supposed to" want to make more than 100 copies a day.  Users...such uncontrollable little scamps we are, never doing what we are "supposed to" do, and doing other things no one ever imagined.

    That said, the advent of the e-copy has been huge, even if we have yet to learn how to reliably make the best use of it, nor have moved forward with it as fast as we were "supposed to."  I do think the day is coming when offices will be paperless, but I don't think I'll be around to see it.  I also don't think it will occur because we finally figured out how to reliably manage electronic documents, but because eventually paper will no longer be a viable option.

    In the meantime, everyone who deals with documentation is trying to figure out how to make things work for them in the middle of this Great Transition.  Or, as the Chinese might put it, we are all living in "interesting" times.  For those of us dealing documentation in a regulated environment, a little more interesting than for others.

    -------------------------------------------
    Julie Omohundro RAC
    Durham NC
    United States
    -------------------------------------------




  • 16.  RE: EU Technical Files

    Posted 01-Jul-2014 11:56
    Kolleen -

    As I mentioned in another reply within this thread, different Notified Bodies and auditors have different expectations - and companies generally structure their Technical File creation/control/maintenance procedures based on their past experience and ongoing feedback from their Notified Bodies.  I imagine there are a number of "correct" ways to manage Technical Files/Design Dossiers and, as long as they are effectively managed, it doesn't really matter who "holds" them.  As I said, in my experience, Regulatory Affairs is responsible for control and maintenance of the TFs and DDs, but that is because that's how those companies set up their systems (even when the product volume far exceeded Regulatory personnel).  If your current employer's system has defined a group other than RA as the keeper of the documentation and files, and their Notified Body is satisfied with that, then it is obviously acceptable.

    I hope this helps!


    -------------------------------------------
    Laurie Cartwright
    Senior Manager II, Regulatory Affairs
    Smith & Nephew (formerly ArthroCare Corporation)
    Irvine CA
    United States
    -------------------------------------------




  • 17.  RE: EU Technical Files

    Posted 30-Jun-2014 09:42
    Isis, on the face of it, this seems contradictory.  You don't want to wait for a specific change and yet, if nothing changes, then there is nothing to update, right?  Would you mind clarifying?  Are you saying you don't want to specific a single particular trigger for an update, but instead based your updates on a specified period of time?  Also, if you mean the latter, does this mean you would not plan to update at the time a labeling or design change occurred?

    -------------------------------------------
    Julie Omohundro RAC
    Durham NC
    United States




  • 18.  RE: EU Technical Files

    Posted 30-Jun-2014 13:09

    I realize I'm probably swimming against a strong current here, but...

    With respect to CE Marking, there is no mention of a technical file in the Medical Device Directive, much less a requirement for maintaining one.  The "technical file" is an old manufacturing concept and term, going back to at least the industrial heyday of World War II.  Long before the MDD (or the European Union, for that matter), product manufacturers routinely kept "technical files' to support a vast range of products, from ships to planes to tractors.  Technical files related to construction and public works are also maintained by urban planners and architects, to support their construction projects, a different type of "product."

    The applicable NB-MED Recommendation (2.5.1) is not titled "Technical File," but "Technical Documentation," and uses the term "technical file" only twice.  First, the term is included in the keywords, possibly because they thought that some companies would have trouble finding the guidance otherwise.  Second, it is included in the Rationale and History section of the Recommendation, where it is noted that, at the 1999 NB-MED meeting in Brussels, the initial plan to develop a guidance for a "technical file" were scrapped because "not a technical file but a system/organisation of technical documentation is required."

    Coincidentally, I joined a high-functioning Class III start-up a few months after the Brussels meeting.  The QSM and design engineers came to me to discuss maintenance of the design dossiers.  They noted that almost all the documentation cited in the current NB-MED Recommendation was maintained in Document Control, and asked me if I thought it would be necessary to maintain a separate design dossier.  There was concern that this would lead to redundancy and confusion and create room for error if the documents didn't match up, and they couldn't see the point of maintaining essentially duplicate sets of documentation.  Neither could I.  On the contrary, I thought that the few documents that were part of the design dossier (eg, Declaration of Conformity) but were not current controlled should also be controlled, so that we could be assured that all the technical documentation to support our design dossiers were securely maintained.

    My "design dossier" was simply lists of the documents in Document Control that supported each product. When a new document supporting a product was added to Document Control, I updated my list of design dossier documents available for the product.  Because our Document Control process included an updated listing of all documents in Document Control and notifications each time a new document was added, these lists were easy to maintain.  However, if I were to set this up today, I would probably include a field in the Document Control database that identified the product(s) each Controlled Document supported, not only for CE Marking, but also for FDA and other regulatory agencies, so that we could run the list (essentially the table of contents of the continuously maintained design dossier) automatically as needed, instead of me having to maintain it by hand.

    Everyone was happy with this approach, including our notified body, but those were very early days in the life of the MDD.  (Ours was the first design dossiers our notified body ever reviewed.)  Later, the start-up fell victim to a change in the competitive environment, and I moved on to another area for almost a decade.  Coming back into device regulatory affairs a few years ago, I was quite surprised to find that Regulatory was maintaining technical files and design dossiers.  I'm still not clear why Regulatory feels the need to do this, unless perhaps it is because they lack confidence in their company's document control process.   The same thing goes for the "periodic update" of these technical files and design dossiers.  If all of the documentation needed to support the product is under document control, and therefore gets reliably updated on an ongoing basis, I'm not clear on the need for periodic updates, either.



    -------------------------------------------
    Julie Omohundro RAC
    Durham NC
    United States
    -------------------------------------------



  • 19.  RE: EU Technical Files

    Posted 01-Jul-2014 11:47
    Julie -

    What Notified Bodies expect as far as "technical documentation" has evolved over the years, and there is definitely variance from Notified Body to Notified Body as well as auditor to auditor.  For Class II products, I have generally had success with just a summary document that provide descriptive information and then points to all of the technical components (by part/document number) that are included in the Design History File - this would be the "Part A" described in NB-MED/2.5.1/Rec5.  Recently, I've encountered auditors who are not satisfied with such a "pointer" document and who want a complete paper copy of the Technical File to review - they want it bound separately from the DHF, even if they are also reviewing the DHF, which means there is a significant amount of document duplication. For Class III devices, my experience has been that hard copies Design Dossiers containing all elements described in NB-MED/2.5.1/Rec5 were to be maintained by Regulatory Affairs.  

    Since the late 1990s, I've not worked anywhere that did not have a system and procedures for compiling and maintaining those documents.  I've worked with a number of Notified Bodies (TUV Rheinland and Product Service, NSAI, BSI, SGS, DQS, KEMA) and they all seem to have similar expectations.  I get what you are saying, but it seems that the practice of having Technical Files and Design Dossiers is widely accepted and expected at this point in time.  I think that in the future, as electronic document control systems continue to improve, we are likely to see more acceptance of "e-TFs" and "e-Design Dossiers" - as long as we can quickly produce a hard copy upon request (quickly, I believe, is key). 

    -------------------------------------------
    Laurie Cartwright
    Senior Manager II, Regulatory Affairs
    Smith & Nephew (formerly ArthroCare Corporation)
    Irvine CA
    United States
    -------------------------------------------




  • 20.  RE: EU Technical Files

    Posted 02-Jul-2014 12:07
    Isis,

    You can consider the relationship between document control as part of QMS and technical documentation.

    With your awareness of the relationship, which gives us a big picture, you can think about what would be most effective under your situated circumstances.

    It is best to be done in a way that you can be ready, willing, and able to sustain any kind of audits including an unannounced audit or upon request by competent authorities, if it ever occurs, hopefully not though.  
    • For DHF, DHR and DMR, please consider updating it as it occurs.  
    • For a regular review, it is recommended you perform the review bi-annually or at least annually unless you hardly experience any changes in procedures, specifications, or quality data.

    To be continued





    -------------------------------------------
    http://www.regulatorydoctor.com
    Riner VA
    United States
    -------------------------------------------




  • 21.  RE: EU Technical Files

    Posted 08-Jul-2014 22:25
    This makes sense. There's is difference between RA documents and overlapping QA documents that are part of the QMS. Regardless, maintaining accurate files is key to support surprise or announced audits. Dar ------------------------------------------- Darlene Rosario RAC Principal Consultant RA, Quality and Compliance Velocity Consulting Ventura CA United States -------------------------------------------