Responding to Inspection Findings

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
ENTITIES FOR A UN SYSTEM EVALUATION FRAMEWORK 17th MEETING OF SENIOR FELLOWSHIP OFFICERS OF THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM AND HOST COUNTRY AGENCIES BY DAVIDE.
Advertisements

WG 2 (data exchange) During the transitional period and till the Single Authorisation electronic information and communication system is implemented,
Module 13 Oversight Assessment of Auditor Authentication Bodies
Defensible IEPs Douglas County School District 1 Module V: Documentation and Timelines.
TITLE OF PROJECT PROPOSAL NUMBER Principal Investigator PI’s Organization ESTCP Selection Meeting DATE.
Streamlined Consultation Training Modules Module #1 - Frequently Asked Questions on the Section 7 Consultation Process Module #2 - An Overview of Streamlined.
ICAO USOAP CMA Seminar Exercise 1: LEG/02 – Article 83 bis Group 5 Verónica Decarlos Carlos F. Silva Rueda Ankar Doobay Tomás Abrego Clifford Themen.
New Supplier Set-Up Process Training Session. Contents Background & Introduction Before Set-Up What forms you need Where to find the forms How to complete.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY RENEWAL PROCESS: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS January29, 2015.
SystematicSystematic process that translates quality policy into measurable objectives and requirements, and lays down a sequence of steps for realizing.
SAS 112: The New Auditing Standard Jim Corkill Controller Accounting Services & Controls.
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND COMPULSORY BRIEFING SESSION RAF/2014/00009 Date: 26 March 2014 Time: 11:00.
OHT 4.1 Galin, SQA from theory to implementation © Pearson Education Limited 2004 Software Quality assurance (SQA) SWE 333 Dr Khalid Alnafjan
Data Protection Paul Veysey & Bethan Walsh. Introduction Data Protection is about protecting people by responsibly managing their data in ways they expect.
Westminster City Council and Westminster Primary Care Trust Voluntary Sector Funding 2009/10 Voluntary Sector Funding Eligibility, Application Form Funding,
TELECARE CORP HIPAA AND THE AMENDMENT PROCESS Updated 11/17/09.
AICT5 – eProject Project Planning for ICT. Process Centre receives Scenario Group Work Scenario on website in October Assessment Window Individual Work.
SWIS Digital Inspections Project (SWIS DIP) Chris Allen, Information Management Branch California Integrated Waste Management Board November 5, 2008 The.
Basics of OHSAS Occupational Health & Safety Management System
SYSTEM PLANNING Addendum FALL 2003 RFP Detailed Instructions for Bidder Registration and Proposal Submission ENTERGY SERVICES, INC. October 2003 PLEASE.
Preceptor Orientation
Health and Safety Executive Health and Safety Executive Competent Authority & Data Reporting HSE/DECC Consultation Events - Spring 2014 EU Offshore Directive.
. (Agathe Guillot - GCP Inspector, 14 July 2014) MHRA view of responsible Sponsorship.
1. To start the process, Warehouse Stationery (WSL) will invite you to use The Warehouse Group Supplier Electronic Portal and will send you the link to.
Main Requirements on Different Stages of the Licensing Process for New Nuclear Facilities Module 4.1 Steps in the Licensing Process Geoff Vaughan University.
IEEE /r3 Submission September 2008 John Notor, Cadence Design Systems, Inc.Slide 1 IEEE IMT-Advanced Review Process Date:
Gulana Hajiyeva Environmental Specialist World Bank Moscow Safeguards Training, May 30 – June 1, 2012.
Setting up a Course and using the Course Tutor Guide Workshop A Kim Tree.
ISO NON-CONFORMANCE, CORRECTIVE AND PREVENTIVE ACTION.
How to Survive an Inspection Questions What type of inspection is being conducted? Will there be field evaluations involved? What type of information.
1 UNC Modification 429 Customer Settlement Error Claims Process – Guidance Document.
RBIG WORKSHOP 1 Supply Chain and Asset Management.
Science & Engineering Research Support soCiety Guest Editor Guidelines for Special Issue 1. Quality  Papers must be double -blind.
Suppliers on Contract Purchase Order for Services.
Suppliers without a Contract Purchase Order for Services.
CABLING SYSTEM WARRANTY REGISTRATION. PURPOSE OF CABLING REGISTRATION.
Aspect 1 Defining the problem - Problem: The design context will normally offer a variety of potential problems to solve. A focused problem and need is.
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency Development of the Basis Document for Periodic Safety Review for Research Reactors William Kennedy Research Reactor.
1 Addendum FALL 2004 RFP Detailed Instructions for Bidder Registration and Proposal Submission ENTERGY SERVICES, INC. November 2004.
Change Orders, Extras and Claims Presented by Geoffrey Cantello, City of Ottawa.
Procedural Safeguards for Parents What Educators Should Know Michelle Mobley NELA Cohort III.
Field Work Laws and Regulations. Field Work Laws and Regulations This is one of a series of mini – modules designed to give the auditor guidance in the.
Collecting Copyright Transfers and Disclosures via Editorial Manager™ -- Editorial Office Guide 2015.
Ukraine (nr 46514): Expert Mission on Supervision of Investment Funds` Activities - TAIEX On-site supervision of the investment funds industry in Poland.
IEEE /r5 Submission November 2008 John Notor, Cadence Design Systems, Inc.Slide 1 IEEE IMT-Advanced Review Process Date:
Organization and Implementation of a National Regulatory Program for the Control of Radiation Sources Program Performance Criteria.
Slide 1 POA Seminar 02 March 2016 Personnel Competence Including Certifying Staff and Release to Service Andy Swift / Michael Greer.
Responsibilities of Test Facility Management, Study Director, Principal Investigator and Study Personnel G. Jacobs Belgian GLP Monitorate Zagreb, 17 December.
© Crown copyright 2007 Safeguarding public health Common Inspection Findings May 2008.
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND COMPULSORY BRIEFING SESSION RAF/2014/00009
NIEP Evaluation PO&A “How-to” Guide and Issue Classification
Causal Analysis & Resolution (CAR) Support Category
TOPS TRAINING.
ICAO USOAP CMA Seminar Exercise 1: LEG/02 – Article 83 bis
IRB reporting updates.
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
HOW TO CONSENT A PATIENT?
UK Legal Requirement for Notification of Serious Breaches of Good Clinical Practice or The Trial Protocol John Poland, PhD Senior Director, Regulatory.
Training Appendix Revised January 2018.
Quality Management Systems – Requirements
Training Appendix for Adult Protective Services and Employment Supports June 2018.
Engineering Waiver Management
How St Richard’s processes Subject Access Requests (SARs)
How to conduct Effective Stage-1 Audit
AICT5 – eProject Project Planning for ICT
New Client On-boarding Process
USOAP Continuous Monitoring Approach (CMA) Workshop
IRRS REFRESHER TRAINING Lecture 7
Presentation transcript:

Responding to Inspection Findings October 2013

Guidance for responding to inspection findings Each finding will be contained within a numbered table, below a main category heading in the inspection report. Responses should be entered directly into the tables in the inspection report, which will be sent out in Microsoft Word format. The tables contain structured response fields, which include prompts to enter specific information to address both the identified deficiency and the root cause of the deficiency. Consideration should also be given to identifying and preventing other potential similar deficiencies within the pharmacovigilance system. The red text contained within the response fields should be overwritten. ‘Not applicable’ should be entered into the relevant field if the requested information is not appropriate for the finding in question.

Guidance for responding to inspection findings We would like to receive SMART responses Specific Measurable Achievable Realistic Time Driven

SMART Specific The Company should perform the necessary further assessments to identify the full extent of the finding. The Company must consider not only how to correct the identified deficiency but also the root cause of the problem. Measurable The Company should clearly state what corrective and preventative actions it intends to take to address the finding. The specific deliverables from the proposed corrective and preventative actions should also be stated, e.g. updated work instruction, training record, etc.

SMART Achievable / Realistic The Company should not make promises it cannot deliver on, as corrective and preventative actions will be followed up by an inspector at re-inspection. Companies must comply with the appropriate legislation and so should consider the best way to do so in the context of their business model. Time Driven The Company should clearly state the timeline for the corrective / preventative action(s) for each finding.

Guidance for responding to inspection findings Root Cause Analysis Identify the root cause(s) which, if adequately addressed, will prevent recurrence of the deficiency. There may be more than one root cause for any given deficiency. Further Assessment Assess the extent to which the deficiency exists within the pharmacovigilance system and what impact it may have for all products. Where applicable, describe what further assessment has been performed or may be required to fully evaluate the impact of the deficiency e.g. retrospective analysis of data may be required to fully assess the impact. Corrective Action(s) Detail the action(s) taken / proposed to correct the identified deficiency. Preventative Action(s) Detail the action(s) taken / proposed to eliminate the root cause of the deficiency, in order to prevent recurrence. Action(s) to identify and prevent other potential similar deficiencies should also be considered. Deliverable(s) Detail the specific outputs from the proposed / completed corrective and preventative action(s). For example, updated procedure/work instruction, record of re-training, IT solution. Due Date(s) Specify the actual / proposed date(s) for completion of each action. Indicate when an action is completed.

Example inspection finding C.4.1 Case Processing 30 serious, valid cases originating in the UK were identified for product Fakeomycin, which have not been reported on an expedited basis to MHRA, i.e. within 15 days from the date of receipt of the reports. Root Cause Analysis <<MAH to add text>> Further Assessment Corrective Action(s) Deliverable(s) Due Date(s) Preventative Action(s)

SMART responses Oct 2013 (completed) Finding C.4.1 Case Processing 30 serious, valid cases originating in the UK were identified for product Fakeomycin, which have not been reported on an expedited basis to MHRA, i.e. within 15 days from the date of receipt of the reports. Root Cause Analysis The reporting algorithm in the global safety database for Fakeomycin was checked and was found to be incorrect for the UK territory. There are currently no quality control steps in place for the creation of reporting algorithms in the global safety database. Further Assessment This error has resulted in none of the serious cases originating in the UK being identified for expedited reporting to MHRA for this product. A review of all UK cases for Fakeomycin was conducted and 45 cases were identified which meet the criteria for expedited reporting but were not reported to MHRA on an expedited basis. No other competent authorities are affected. The reporting algorithms for all other products and territories were checked and found to be correct. Corrective Action(s) The 45 identified cases for Fakeomycin will be submitted to MHRA. Deliverable(s) 45 Fakeomycin cases reported to MHRA. Due Date(s) Nov 2013 Preventative Action(s) The reporting algorithm for Fakeomycin has been corrected and validated. A QC checklist will be implemented for use by the database support team when creating and/or updating reporting algorithms in the global safety database, which will provide a mechanism for a secondary check of all variables within the algorithm. Corrected Fakeomycin reporting algorithm. Implementation of algorithm QC checklist. Oct 2013 (completed)

Non-SMART responses <<MAH to add text>> Finding C.4.1 Case Processing 30 serious, valid cases originating in the UK were identified for product Fakeomycin, which have not been reported on an expedited basis to MHRA, i.e. within 15 days from the date of receipt of the reports. Root Cause Analysis Not applicable. Further Assessment <<MAH to add text>> Corrective Action(s) The 30 identified cases for Fakeomycin will be submitted to MHRA in due course. Deliverable(s) Due Date(s) Preventative Action(s) A new process for expedited reporting of serious cases to MHRA will be developed by the end of 2013. As above. Dec 2013 Consideration should be given to the Root Cause and the full extent to which the issue exists Be specific with timelines Don’t copy and paste text from Corrective / Preventative Actions into the Deliverables field – specify the outputs!

Guidance for responding to inspection findings The EEA QPPV should indicate his/her approval of the responses. This can be achieved either by returning the inspection report containing the responses directly via the QPPV email address or by providing a signed letter or statement of approval. Responses are not required in relation to recommendations or observations. If the accuracy of information contained in the Inspection Report is challenged or if findings are disputed, then the respondent should enclose relevant documentary evidence supporting the responses. If a finding is not disputed, then documentary evidence is not required.

Guidance for responding to inspection findings Do’s Do respond on time – if there is going to be a delay let us know. Do clearly state what action(s) the Company intends to take (or has already taken) to address the finding. Clearly state the timeline for the action(s). Do provide relevant documentary evidence if you dispute any finding. Do what you say. If changing circumstances make this impossible, let us know and provide new timelines for action.

Guidance for responding to inspection findings Don’ts Don’t over do it – answers should be concise and to the point. Additional documents provided should be kept to a minimum. Don’t under do it – sufficient detail should be provided to allow the inspector to assess the response. Don’t be afraid to ask. Don’t keep us in the dark. If responses are not satisfactory then the inspector will contact you and request that further information is provided.

Crown copyright 2013 The materials featured within this MHRA presentation are subject to Crown copyright protection. Any other copy or use of Crown copyright materials featured in this presentation, in any form or medium, is subject to prior approval of the MHRA which has Delegated Authority from Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO) to administer Crown copyright for MHRA originated material. Applications should be in writing, clearly stating the proposed use/reuse of the information, and should be sent to the MHRA at the following address: Conference and Education Function, MHRA, 151 Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1W 9SZ. Fax 020 3080 7522 or e-mail speakers@mhra.gsi.gov.uk. You may not sell or resell any information reproduced to any third party without prior agreement. The permission to reproduce Crown copyright protected material does not extend to any material in this pack which is subject to a separate licence or is the copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned.