David Simard

Data integrity doesn’t stop at manufacturing. That’s where inspectors start following the trail. For years, data integrity meant: batch records, signatures, timestamps. Today, that’s only the beginning. Regulators are now asking: 👉 “How was this quality decision made?” 👉 “Who influenced it?” 👉 “Can you reproduce it?” And increasingly, those decisions live in digital workflows: • complaint triage • risk evaluations • CAPA justification • PMS trending • AI-assisted analysis If the data trail breaks, the decision collapses with it. Quality decisions must be: ✔ traceable — from source data to final approval ✔ reproducible — same inputs, same logic, same outcome ✔ defensible — clear rationale, not just signatures Inspectors no longer follow the org chart. They follow: 📊 the data 🔄 the revisions 🧠 the decision logic If they can’t see how you got from signal → assessment → action, they won’t trust the result. 👉 The trend is clear: Data integrity now means decision integrity. And in a digital QMS, every click leaves a footprint. #DataIntegrity #QMS #RegulatoryAffairs #ISO13485 #Audits

3

As we move into QMSR, it is imperative to recognize that your previous CAPA extension process will be judged differently. If 100% of the extensions are approved (excusing the inefficiencies of multiple revisions of the extension request documentation), your extension process ceases to have any real value, regardless of the level of management signing off.

15

The biggest QMS failure we see in medical devices is weak CAPA systems. -Same problems. -Same audits. -Same excuses. Regulators no longer accept “staff retrained” as a root cause. Strong CAPA isn’t paperwork. It’s protection. Fix it before inspectors do. Watch here: https://lnkd.in/dBt6a_58

8

Audits rarely fail because of one big issue. They fail because of repeatable patterns. This short video breaks down what FDA inspectors see most often, including: ✅ CAPA documentation gaps ✅ Incomplete training records ✅ Traceability issues between design & production If your risk files or QMS processes touch any of these areas… it’s worth a 3-minute watch. #FDA #AuditReady #QualitySystems #ISO13485 #ISO14971 #CAPA #MedTech #RegulatoryAffairs #Qualira https://zurl.co/qRzlR

4

QMSR change matters: Risk appeared in 2% of FDA citations before February 2026. After the methodology change, it appears in more than 27%. That jump isn’t a coincidence, and it’s not just about CFR versus ISO. The new FDA inspection method, Compliance Program Manual for Inspection of Medical Device Manufacturers (CP 7382.850), marks a dramatic shift. When you look closely at FDA citation language before and after February 2, 2026, the real shift is how risk itself is judged. Before the transition, risk was treated as a technical task. Citations focused on risk analysis, validation risk, design risk, and whether assessments were inadequate. In short, FDA asked: Was the analysis performed correctly? After the transition, that framing changes completely. Recent citations emphasize risk management, risk‑based approaches, product realization risk, and how risk is embedded across QMS processes. The question is no longer about calculations. It’s about governance: Does the organization actually operate by risk? What’s most telling is what disappears. Terms like “risk analysis” and “inadequate risk” drop out entirely after the shift. They’re replaced by expectations that risk drives decision‑making, process control, and system design. This isn’t a wording update. It’s a change in regulatory philosophy. Risk is no longer something you document at the edge of your quality system. FDA is signaling that it expects risk to be the logic your quality system runs on. https://lnkd.in/ggE5_tPv #RiskManagement #FDA #483Citations #AdaptiveQualitySystems

320

16 Comments

Calibration issues rarely start as quality events. They usually start as small gaps in documentation, visibility, or requirements. This new eBook breaks down the top 10 calibration pain points hurting medical device quality, from audit anxiety to out-of-tolerance investigations, and explains how teams can reduce risk without slowing production. See where calibration challenges may be hiding in your operation. Get the eBook here: https://lnkd.in/gCmdj2xX

4

Using risk management as the inspection roadmap - and increasing visibility into management review, internal audits, and supplier audits -, puts leadership ownership and system effectiveness squarely in focus.

3

Today, FDA published its weekly list of recent Warning Letters. This Warning Letter to ASP Global only cited one QMS area - purchasing controls, while also citing violations related to the MDR regulation, Corrections and Removals regulation, and a failure to get clearance before marketing a significantly changed device. This one statement in sub-section C of citation 1 (Purchasing Controls) struck me as particularly interesting: "C. (b)(4) [the supplier] was audited by FDA in (b)(4) and received four observations, but ASP Global was not notified until April 29, 2025, after (b)(4) was placed on Import Alert, despite working closely with (b)(4) on SCAR-339 from February to March 2025. The ASP/(b)(4) Quality Agreement, Section 2.3, Page 6 of 15, states "(b)(4) shall notify ASP in writing within (b)(4) if any of the following occurs: (c) (b)(4) becomes aware of any inspection or audit findings that affect safety, effectiveness, conformity, or availability of product."" Effectively, ASP Global was cited in the Warning Letter because its supplier failed to notify it of the outcome of an FDA inspection (i.e., import alert) despite a requirement to provide such notification in the Supplier Quality Agreement (SQA). Initially, it seems unfair that FDA would cite a firm for something its supplier failed to do, but it speaks to a very important need within supplier quality teams at medical device manufacturers. SQAs cannot be once-and-done documents. The ongoing monitoring of suppliers (21 CFR 820.50 and ISO 13485:2016, clauses 4.1.5, 7.4.2) must include ensuring that the supplier is meeting all of its obligations under the SQA. As we see from this WL, FDA may hold you accountable for a supplier not complying with an SQA if they feel you haven't done your job in enforcing its provisions. https://lnkd.in/gsQ-cyjZ

75

8 Comments