IFU Checklist for Reusable Medical Devices

by | Aug 3, 2020 | COVID-19, FDA, Medical Devices, Reusable

The EU Compliance and Enforcement Group (COEN) recently released a new guidance document that provides information to the industry on how to design their instructions for use for re-usable and re-sterilizable devices. This new guidance document explains the EC’s view on the applicability of EN ISO 17664 “Sterilization of medical devices -Information to be provided by the manufacturer for the processing of re-sterilizable medical devices” which is a harmonized standard to the EU MDD.1

User reports and market surveillance have shown that reusable and re-sterilizable medical devices do not contain an IFU. This is mainly due to the interpretation of rule 6 in Annex 1 that allows for class I devices to omit IFU “if they can be used safely without any such instructions”; and a majority of the reusable and re-sterilizable devices fall under class I.1 However, section 13.6h of Annex 1 requires that if the device is reusable, the instructions for use (IFU) must provide information on the appropriate processes to allow reuse, including cleaning, disinfection, packaging and, where appropriate, the method of sterilization of the device to be resterilized.1

As part of this guidance document, the commission provides a checklist that follows EN ISO 17664, that will help the industry to design their IFUs for reusable devices to comply with ISO 17664.1

The checklist contains the following elements and can be accessed here: 2 https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/md_sector/docs/md_checklists-iso-17664-14937_en.pdf

  • General description of IFU
  • Information about cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization of the device
  • Cleaning and disinfection processes
  • Drying processes
  • Inspection, maintenance, testing and packaging
  • Sterilization and storage
  • Human factors such as the training and knowledge of the users
  • Accessories utilized
  • Tolerance of reprocessing cycles

Have questions or need help in complying with the new requirements? Call us today at 248-987-4497 or email us at info@emmainternational.com.

1Compliance and Enforcement Group (COEN) (July 2020) Instructions For Use for reusable and re‐sterilizable Medical Devices retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/md_sector/docs/md_checklists-iso-17664-14937_en.pdf on 07/29/2020.

2Emergo (July 2020) European regulators publish Instructions for Use checklist for reusable medical devices retrieved from https://www.emergobyul.com/blog/2020/07/european-regulators-publish-instructions-use-checklist-reusable-medical-devices on 07/29/2020

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