Steven Brand’s picture

By: Steven Brand

The food industry is evolving rapidly, with consumers demanding quality, authenticity, and transparency from food manufacturers. And they’re not just demanding it; they’re “voting with their dollars,” supporting companies that align with their personal beliefs. To keep up with consumer demand—and to keep up your bottom line—it’s important to understand their needs and make changes that support them.

In doing so, you can improve your product quality, reduce waste, inspire brand loyalty, compete more effectively, and avert potential media or food-safety disasters. Let’s look at six ways to improve product quality in food manufacturing.

Peter Rose’s picture

By: Peter Rose

On May 26, 2020, the new European Union Medical Device Regulation (MDR) will finally take effect. By that date, all Class I manufacturers wishing to continue their trading activities within the EU market must have effectively completed the transition from the previous medical device directive and be fully compliant under EU MDR.

This statement alone may be surprising to certain Class I manufacturers, who assume that their products’ classification as low-risk devices under the previous directive will exempt them from all this EU MDR commotion. These presumptions are misguided because classification requirements listed in the EU MDR are relevant to all manufacturers, irrespective of past classification.

With this deadline in sight, it is crucial that all manufacturers familiarize themselves with these regulatory changes and promptly make a start on implementing necessary measures. Those that fail to achieve compliance on time will be left behind, and their products removed from the market. In light of this industry bustle, this article aims to advise Class I manufacturers about the primary alterations that the EU MDR will enforce, as well as offer practical steps that manufacturers can begin to follow.

Stephen McCarthy’s picture

By: Stephen McCarthy

In our constantly evolving, data-rich universe, collecting, interpreting, and understanding process data can be tricky. But it is increasingly important if we want to maintain sustainable quality across product development and manufacturing processes. This challenge is particularly evident in the life sciences arena, where pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device manufacturers constantly strive to build quality processes that deliver “fit for purpose” output.

Process data typically come from a collection of diverse sources in varying formats. These data are dynamic, which often means they have a short shelf life. The longer a piece of data sits, the greater chance that it loses relevancy. Data often are also coming from an extremely complex supply chain that may include development or manufacturing partners’ systems and processes.

Jennifer Lopez’s picture

By: Jennifer Lopez

Globalization of the medical device market as well as its supporting supply chains continues to increase year after year. This has forced regulatory bodies to grapple with finding a way to narrow the gap between international and domestic regulation. In spring 2018 the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced its intention to adopt the internationally recognized quality management standard ISO 13485:2016 for medical devices. According to the FDA, the revisions are intended to modernize and reduce compliance and record-keeping burdens on device manufacturers by harmonizing current domestic and international requirements.

For FDA-regulated manufacturers, the required actions to close the gap between the FDA’s existing Quality System Regulation (QSR) 21 CFR part 820 and ISO 13485:2016 should not increase manufacturers’ regulatory administration significantly. However, it is important that manufacturers are aware of and prepared for these changes, and they understand what the changes will mean for their businesses. They can do this by seeking industry insight on best practices.

Stephanie McArdle’s default image

By: Stephanie McArdle

The FDA has announced an end to the alternative summary reporting (ASR) program for medical device manufacturers and will make the data publicly accessible.

The ASR program originally launched in 2000 when device manufacturers sought an “alternative summary” reporting exemption. ASR permitted medical device manufacturers to send the FDA an accounting of device injuries and malfunctions on a periodic basis (e.g., quarterly or annually) in lieu of fulfilling their standard public reporting obligations. The ASR program actually ended in 2017, but evidence shows that device exemptions were still accepted by the FDA.

Grant Ramaley’s picture

By: Grant Ramaley

Although the “new approach” to regulating medical devices has always given more urgency to higher-risk medical devices, this is not the case for the European Medical Device Regulation (MDR). Class 1 medical devices must fully comply with the regulation by May 26, 2020, or be shut out of the region. 

This could be more problematic for dental products, which are inherently lower risk. Rubber dams and dental operating lights will have to comply before MRIs and pacemakers. 

To ensure that medical device manufacturers of class 1 devices understand that they must comply immediately on May 27, 2020, when the new regulation goes into effect, the European Commission states this plainly in its “Fact Sheet to Medical Device Manufacturers.”

Matthew M. Lowe’s picture

By: Matthew M. Lowe

While most business sectors have welcomed the efficiencies and benefits that cloud technologies and software-as-a-service (SaaS) offerings bring, the life sciences industry has been slow to embrace external cloud networks. Merely a decade ago, in fact, an International Data Corp. survey showed that 75 percent of CIOs and IT executives in life sciences and healthcare fields surveyed said that security risks were their primary reason for opposing cloud technologies.

Cloud-averse attitudes are slow to change, and industry research shows that companies that manage health information continue to show major resistance to cloud technology.

Jon Speer’s picture

By: Jon Speer

The European Medical Device Regulation (MDR) is a new set of regulations that governs the production and distribution of medical devices in Europe, and compliance with the regulation is mandatory for medical device companies that want to sell their products in the European marketplace.

If your company was already compliant with the Medical Devices Directive (MDD), don't be fooled into complacency: The MDR represents brand-new regulations with significant changes.

For those seeking to better understand why the regulations have changed, and what some of the major changes are, let’s take a look at some of the most common questions we hear from our users.

1. Why did the MDD need an update?

There were many reasons the MDD needed to be updated. For instance, when the MDD came into law in 1992, software as a medical device (SaaMD) did not yet exist. Software was something that controlled electric machines, and apps that patients could use to monitor their own health were still nearly 20 years away.

AssurX’s picture

By: AssurX

Last month an investigative report revealed that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has millions of “hidden” serious injury and malfunctions reports on medical devices. According to the report from Kaiser Health News, “Since 2016, at least 1.1 million incidents have flowed into the internal “alternative summary reporting” [ASR] repository, instead of being described individually as device-adverse events in the public database known as MAUDE.”

Medical experts trust the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) to identify problems that could put patients in jeopardy—making products that are not in that database essentially concealed.

In 2017 alone, 480,000 injuries or malfunctions were reported through the ASR. The FDA has declined to provide a complete list of the approximately 100 devices that have been granted reporting exemptions. Requests for those data through the Freedom of Information Act could take up to two years.

Critics have pointed out that many of those devices, which include staplers, vaginal mesh devices, robotic surgical devices, breast implants, and heart valves, come from medical device industry leaders.

Matthew M. Lowe’s picture

By: Matthew M. Lowe

Despite the life science industry’s infatuation with modernity and trend chasing, even its most forward-thinking organizations have struggled to fully digitize and integrate their operations.

Yet, while the industry lags behind most other sectors in implementing business-streamlining digital technologies, many shrewd life science companies are working to close the digital gap so they can capitalize on the competitive advantages digitization affords.

As digital initiatives gain more traction, and as advanced technologies increasingly perform more of our mundane tasks, skilled life science professionals’ fears about job displacement are intensifying. Their digital apprehensions are undeniably intertwined with the global workforce’s general anxieties about automation, as highlighted in a 2017 PwC survey that reports 37 percent of the world’s workers are worried about eventually losing their jobs to automation. The unease is worsening, it seems, as only 33 percent of workers reported concerns about job-eradicating automation in the same survey in 2014.

Syndicate content