View the original warning letter.
Your firm does not have a design history file (DHF) for the Meridian DR 200 single panel X-ray system. The system is comprised of a workstation, flat panel detectors, acquisition software and X-ray hardware. Missing elements of the DHF include:
• A design plan for the project
• Established or approved design inputs/outputs for the system
• Verification or Validation testing for the system
• Design Transfer
• Risk Management for the system
• Design Reviews.
Your firm does not have procedures to describe the content of your Device History Records (DHR’s). In addition, eleven of eleven DHR files reviewed showed that all were incomplete as the only record in the files was your testing of the flat panel detectors, which is only one part of the X-ray system. The DHRs do not include installation records; records of any non-conformities; records regarding the X-ray hardware, workstation or acquisition software; or records of final product testing and quality release of your systems.
View the original warning letter.
Failure to establish adequate procedures for acceptance of incoming product, as required by 21 CFR 820.80(b). For example, testing records for timers received on March 27, 2009; April 9, 2009; April 17, 2009; and May 28, 2009, only included a computer printout of the final data as the original raw data of the testing conducted and acceptance data for each of the timers were not maintained.
View the original warning letter.
Failure to validate the design under defined operating conditions and by using initial production units, lots, batches, or their equivalents, as required by 21 CFR 820.30(g). Your firm failed to perform design validation for the data analysis software used in the Cal Ver EP Evaluator to determine out of specification stability results for Verichem products.
View the original warning letter.
Failure to establish and maintain adequate procedures for verifying or validating the corrective and preventive action to ensure that such action is effective and does not adversely affect the finished device, as required by 21 CFR 820.100(a)(4). For example, no protocol, including acceptance criteria, was established for the validation of Change Request [redacted]. Additionally, there was no documentation showing that this change was validated.
View the original warning letter.
Failure to adequately ensure that when the results of a process cannot be fully verified by subsequent inspection and test that the process shall be validated with a high degree of assurance and approved according to established procedure [21 C.F.R. § 820.75(a)]. “Specifically, the procedure “Validation of the Aseptic Filling Process Utilizing the Media Fill Method,”[redacted], states that initial validations should be conducted consecutively and prior to routine production fills and subsequent re-qualifications should be performed [redacted] as appropriate. In addition, the procedure states that routine production may not resume until acceptable qualification or validation runs are achieved or until all appropriate investigations and/or repeat media fills have been performed with acceptable results. However, validation of the aseptic filling process in filling suite [redacted] for [redacted] bottles was inadequate in that the [redacted] re-qualification of the [redacted] Aseptic Filling Process utilizing the Media Fill Method [redacted]performed on March 23, 2009 failed. The failure produced [redacted] contaminated units out of approximately [redacted] units inspected. In addition, the subsequent validation of [redacted] for filling [redacted]and [redacted] bottle [redacted performed on May 20, 2009 also failed.
View the original warning letter.
Your validation of your device design is incomplete in that the firm has not established a protocol for conducting validation testing and did not validate the software to ensure that devices conform to the defined user needs and intended uses, as required by 21 CFR §820.30(g). Specifically, you have made 1,900 revisions to the software in three years without conducting validation testing .
View the original warning letter.
Failure to validate manufacturing processes and approve according to established procedures, where the results cannot be fully verified by subsequent inspections and tests. [21 C.F.R. 820.75(a)] Specifically: Computer Numerical Control (CNC) Machine #C-4 had out of specification results during operational qualification conducted during validation. These out of specification results were not investigated or addressed in the validation report.
View the original warning letter.
View the original warning letter.