EU’s Clarification on Medical Device Remote Audits

by | Dec 11, 2020 | Audits, FDA, Medical Devices, Quality, Regulatory, Remote

The European Commission published a new guidance document that clarifies certain requirements originally outlined in MDCG 2020-4: Guidance on temporary extraordinary measures related to medical device Notified Body audits during COVID-19 quarantine orders and travel restrictions.1

The new guidance clarifies the scope of MDCG 2020-4 and further states that the guidelines are applicable to:1

  • All devices requiring the involvement of a notified body, thus not limited to COVID-19 essential medical equipment.
  • Initial certification audits under the directives, however, the notified body must perform a case-by-case assessment
  • Audits to extend the certification under the directives, which also requires the notified body to do a case-by-case assessment
  • Audits of existing and new critical subcontractors/suppliers under the Directives

Unannounced audits are not included in the scope of this guidance, however, a risk-based approach must be applied in recognizing the need to postpone such audits. 1

A list of devices clinically necessary for COVID-19 has been published on the EU Commission’s website and can be found here: however,  the guidance document states that the MDCG 2020-4 does not just apply to products that are considered clinically necessary and that all devices requiring the involvement of a notified body are included in the scope.1

Additionally, the guidance document clarifies the use of ‘Most advanced’ information and communication technologies (ICT), stating that the MDCG does not require a particular ICT to be used in audits, however, the ICT must be effective in ensuring the necessary levels of security, integrity, confidentiality, and data protection.1

Furthermore, the technology should allow auditors to gather evidence and record it appropriately whenever necessary and retain copies of documentation submitted by the manufacturer for later review, as deemed appropriate to preserve the audit trail.1

COVID-19 has certainly brought some unique challenges to all industries and everybody is trying to do their bit. EMMA International is here to help with all your compliance needs in such difficult times! Give us a call today at +1 248-987-4497 or email us at to know more.

1EU Commission (Dec 2020) MDCG 2020-17 Questions and Answers related to MDCG 2020-4 retrieved on 12/10/2020 from

Nikita Angane

Nikita Angane

Solutions Delivery Specialist - Ms. Angane is a Bioengineering graduate with experience in medical device commercialization, product development, quality system compliance and regulatory affairs. Her portfolio includes working on medical devices, combination products, and pharmaceuticals. As a Solutions Delivery Specialist at EMMA International, she offers her expertise to help our clients achieve an effective and sustainable quality system, and develop regulatory strategies for market access and compliance of new products in the US and international markets. Ms. Angane earned a Bachelor of Engineering in Biomedical Engineering from the University of Mumbai, India and an M.S. in Bioengineering from University of Illinois at Chicago.

More Resources

FDA’s Refusal to Accept Process

FDA’s Refusal to Accept Process

Before the submission of a 510(k) premarket notification, the purpose of which is to notify the FDA of the manufacturer’s intent to market a medical device,[i] there is a provision for acceptance review. This review serves as a method to assess whether a submission is administratively complete and includes all necessary information for FDA to determine substantial equivalence under section 513(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act (21 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 360c(i)). To establish substantial equivalence under this provision, FDA must find the same intended use as the predicate device and either have the same technological characteristics as the predicate device or appropriate clinical and scientific data necessary to establish that the device is safe and effective as the predicate device. If the Authority is unable to determine substantial equivalence due to insufficient information, it may request for additional information to make that determination. Therefore, as a part of the acceptance review, the FDA staff follows the acceptance checklist[ii] to ensure that the application is administratively complete. These administrative elements are identified as RTA items and are required to be presented. The purpose of conducting the acceptance review is for the Lead Reviewer to determine whether the 510(k) submission meets the minimum threshold of acceptability and should be accepted for substantive review.[iii]
Empowering Your Workforce through Kaizen

Empowering Your Workforce through Kaizen

Last week, I touched on the idea of involving and empowering all employees in the workplace through the corrective and preventive actions process by fostering taking initiative and a problem-solving (refer to blogpost ‘The Art of Addressing Non-Conformances in Operations’). To expand on this concept a bit further, we’re going to be looking at Kaizen–a continuous improvement strategy in which employees at all levels are also empowered to solve problems towards big gains.
FDA’s draft guidelines on Remote Regulatory Assessments (RRAs)

FDA’s draft guidelines on Remote Regulatory Assessments (RRAs)

The pandemic has been a challenging time for all industries including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA had to alter the manner in which it conducted its operations. One set of tools adopted by the FDA in response to COVID-19 was the remote regulatory assessment (RRAs).

Ready to learn more about working with us?

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This