This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
HIPAA Journal is conducting interviews with healthcare professionals and service providers to find out more about their compliance journeys, how the HIPAA Rules have affected their working lives, and the successes and challenges they have faced with HIPAA compliance. Tell the readers about your career in the healthcare industry.
Compliance with UDI requirements will now be enforced for the first batch of devices in the agency’s phased implementation plan. Since the introduction of the exemption in 2002, the technology and manufacturing processes used to produce medical devices have changed dramatically.
FDA specifically identified the following as not having to register as device manufacturers: Licensed practitioners, including physicians, dentists, and optometrists, who manufacture or otherwise alter devices solely for use in their practice. [8] 8] We could go on, but hopefully you get the gist.
The Regulations were first issued with immediate effect in 2002 and were later revised in 2016. Good Practice Guide: Membrane Based WFI Systems, May 2002. ISPE Good Practice Guide: Critical Utilities GMP Compliance. Affected needle kits should be destroyed in compliance with the health care institution’s process for disposal.
China’s Center for Medical Device Evaluation (CMDE) Update Compliance Guidelines and Recommended Paths for Clinical Evaluation Paths for Certain Medical Devices, 25 July 2022. 29 of 2022 , Technical Guidelines for Compliance with the Essential Principles of Medical Device Safety and Performance. CMDE Announcement No.
The vote occurred on 16 February 2023 following a plenary meeting of the European Parliament, and represents a significant step towards a formal extension of MDR and IVDR compliance deadlines for some device manufacturers. The name and address of manufacturers provided by the company on its establishment license application were not accurate.
The vote occurred on 16 February 2023 following a plenary meeting of the European Parliament, and represents a significant step towards a formal extension of MDR and IVDR compliance deadlines for some device manufacturers. The written procedure for recall was inadequate and this procedure had not been implemented.
The reported irregularities and the manufacturing conditions of the products, that is, compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices, were verified on the spot. These are requirements of the Therapeutic Goods (Medical Devices) Regulations 2002.
After receiving complaints, ANVSA performed joint inspections with local health surveillance agencies.The reported irregularities and the manufacturing conditions of the products, that is, compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices,were verifiedon the spot.
2002), held that a videogame could not be a “product” for strict liability purposes. “[I]n considering whether to recognize a new tort recovery theory, the Colorado courts give great weight to the theory’s impact on free expression.” Connecticut Connecticut’s products liability statute does not define the term “product.” See Conn.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 26,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content