May 17, 2020

EU Medical Device Regulations - The nightmare before Christmas

medical devices
Health regulations
medical devices
Mark Cusworth, VP Research & D...
6 min
EU Medical Device Regulations
Imagine waking up in a world where the product registrations of all your medical devices have become invalid. It’s a world where you need to re-regist...

Imagine waking up in a world where the product registrations of all your medical devices have become invalid. It’s a world where you need to re-register every device that you plan to ship to Europe. And, worse still, it’s a world where that re-registration process dictates changes to the labelling content of all those devices – from the product artwork to the literature that accompanies it. This will soon become a reality for all medical device manufacturers that do business in Europe.

New medical device regulations (MDR) are now in place that impose major requirements on anyone involved in the design, manufacture, approval and commercialisation of devices that are sold in the EU. Although full adoption is not expected until 2020, many of the most challenging requirements need to be in place by December 2018.

Out with the old, in with the new

EU MDR is broad-ranging regulation that replaces the old EU Medical Device Directive and subjects the entire product lifecycle to new and comprehensive scrutiny. Its scope is forcing medical device companies – and their external partners – to review processes and systems that touch every aspect of their operations. The ramifications for labelling operations are particularly significant, shining a bright light on organizations’ ability to capture, manage and share data across their entire enterprise.

The first major milestone of the adoption timetable is the introduction of the new European Database for Medical Devices (EUDAMED), which goes live December 2018. This development alone is the catalyst for a wave of labelling challenges that could prevent businesses from being able to sell their devices in Europe if they are not addressed in time.

MDR mandates that product registrations for all devices need to be submitted to EUDAMED if they’re to be permitted for sale in the EU. However, to register products successfully, companies must comply with new and specific requirements around labelling content. These include, but are not limited to, labelling requirements around: single-use devices, clinical investigation, hazard warnings, electronic labelling, electronic IFUs and the future introduction of mandatory symbols.

One particular requirement – the introduction of a new symbol to show that a package contains a medical device– means that every company will need to amend their label design to allow for its inclusion. The regulation also heralds the introduction of UDI requirements for all medical devices. Though many of these changes are in line with US UDI, there are significant differences that mean its EU counterpart will be applied to more devices and adopt tighter controls than the FDA.

These are huge, impactful changes that dictate the need for a data-led labelling system and infrastructure that provides connectivity, visibility and control right across a company. However, a recent industry survey indicates that only half the industry has understood the implications of the regulations and begun to plan for change. Worryingly, of the remaining half that haven’t, 48% admit they’ve not yet started to think about the challenge. The countdown to Christmas has already begun.

Naturally, the introduction of UDI requirements to the EU means that many organisations are already some way along the pathway of adopting processes that support FDA UDI compliance. So, what can we learn from the US experience that might inform best practice adoption in the EU? Here are five key learnings that have emerged.

Five gold rings

#1: Act now

It’s easy to underestimate the impact that UDI implementation will have on operations – and the cross-organisational involvement such projects demand. As a result, development and deployment can become slow, complex and expensive. However, the scope of MDR is far broader than UDI, bringing greater complexity and more impactful penalties if systems fail to comply. There is no greater penalty than the inability to ship product whilst companies await a license. Lesson one is simple: don’t wait, act now – the commercial ramifications of failure are huge.

Related stories

#2: It’s not just about labelling

UDI is commonly misconceived as the sole preserve of the labelling or regulatory department. But, just like labelling itself, it touches every aspect of a business. It’s therefore important to ensure that the development of systems to support MDR compliance is based on the views of all relevant stakeholders – not simply single-discipline functions. The most successful companies build integrated teams that involve stakeholders from both across and outside of the organisation. Crucially, they establish them early – and engage them frequently – to help shape a collaborative strategy

#3: Test your systems

Before considering a new implementation, it’s important to test the existing system – sometimes it may have capabilities that you’re unaware of which are going to waste. Similarly, some solutions make functionality claims that don’t reflect the real-world experience. For example, many solutions promise a ‘single source of the truth’ but poor integration with other systems make it difficult for users to access and retrieve data. The lesson? Conduct ‘Fit for Purpose’ tests on your software and hardware – and if you’re uncertain about capabilities, talk to your technology partner.

#4: Ensure data is reliable

Having a reliable ‘single source of the truth’ has never been more important; MDR mandates organisations to include data from every part of an enterprise on their labelling and packaging. Yet many companies still don’t have sufficient confidence in their data. Understanding and trusting your data model is key to a successful implementation. It’s important to know where your data is stored, how it’s maintained and what controls are in place to assure its integrity. The best solutions allow users to capture data compliantly but also to maintain it in ways that meet the needs of all stakeholders.

#5: Be ready for change

Operational agility is a vital commodity. The regulatory landscape tomorrow will look different to what it does today – so it’s important to think longer-term and build solutions that flex as the regulatory environment evolves. Companies often deploy systems that focus on narrow, present-day requirements, only to find themselves straitjacketed when the landscape inevitably shifts. Think bigger picture and continually collaborate, both internally and externally. A good technology partner will design systems based on a deep understanding of the industry and be cognizant of the fluctuating regulatory environment.

Ultimately, the best labelling solutions give medical device organizations a 360° view of their master data assets. And they ensure the core components of label lifecycle management – label design, workflow processes, inspection capabilities and audit control – flow naturally together. These capabilities will be essential if companies are to meet the requirements of EU MDR. But the countdown to Christmas future has already begun. The demands of December 2018 will soon be upon us. Act now to avoid the nightmare before Christmas.

Further information can be accessed via Prisymid’s whitepaper.

Share article

Jul 27, 2021

 NHS care homes are better than private, report finds

2 min
 NHS care homes are better than private, report finds
NHS residential care homes provide better quality care than the private sector, a new report by Kepler Vision Technologies has found

A new survey has found that 60% of people with parents in NHS care homes believe the quality of care has improved, compared to just 49% of respondents with parents in private care facilities. 

The survey was conducted by Kepler Vision Technologies, an AI-driven company formed at the University of Amsterdam. It was carried out among UK adults with parents over the age of 75. 

Respondents cited more capable care staff and better monitoring systems as being the main reasons for improvement. 

However those who do not have parents in assisted living facilities had a different viewpoint - in this case only 35% of respondents believe that NHS facilities are improving, compared to 32% who believe it is only improving in the private sector. 

Only 18% of people whose parents live with them or independently believe care home staff are able to look after residents to a good standard.

Kepler Vision say this difference in opinion is due to perceived budget cuts and financial pressures, with 67% of people commenting that a lack of funding has had a negative effect on care in both NHS and private care facilities. 

Other key findings of the survey include: 
 * Out of those who say quality has declined in care homes, 69% say the NHS is dealing with budget cuts and increased financial pressure, while 65% also said that the private system is dealing with these pressures too
 * 55% said that they or their parent have money saved specifically to pay for their future care
 * 35% said the idea of their parent in a care home makes them feel frightened, although 32% say it makes them feel secure
 * 52% are worried about their parent catching COVID
 * 47%  are worried about their parent being lonely
 * 46% are concerned they could fall over alone

The announcement of this research follows the UK government's decision to delay presenting its social care budget till the autumn

Commenting on the research, Dr Harro Stokman, CEO of Kepler Vision Technologies said: “While it is good to see that people recognise the importance of staff and face-to-face interaction in elderly care, the huge gap in opinion between those with parents in care and those without shows that there are unfair negative perceptions around the residential care space. 

"More can and should be done by care homes to give people the confidence that their relatives will receive the very best care - by highlighting the excellent work of staff and how well they are able to monitor resident’s needs with easy-to-use technology.”

Share article