IF MedTechBuild with us

Build the design history file as you go

ISO 13485 asks for a record of each design stage. Written at the stage, it costs little. Compiled at the end, it costs weeks and loses the reasons.

Quality3 min read

A design history file is the record of how a device was designed. ISO 13485 calls it the design and development file, in clause 7.3.10, and an auditor or a regulator reads it before accepting the device. It is easiest to understand as a V: needs become requirements and designs on the way down, and are checked on the way back up.

The V of design controls under ISO 13485. Down the left: user needs, design inputs (7.3.3) and design outputs (7.3.4). At the bottom: build and test units. Up the right: tests on the units, verification (7.3.6), which checks outputs against inputs, and validation (7.3.7), which checks the device against the user need. Design reviews, change control and the design and development file run through every step, and design transfer (7.3.8) follows validation.User needsand intended useDesign inputs7.3.3Design outputs7.3.4Build unitsTest the unitsVerification7.3.6Validation7.3.7Outputs meet inputs?Device meets the need?Reviews 7.3.5, change control 7.3.9 and the file 7.3.10 run throughout. Transfer 7.3.8 follows validation.
The V of design controls, with the ISO 13485 clause for each step.

What clause 7.3 asks for

ClauseRecord
7.3.2Design and development planning
7.3.3Design inputs: the requirements the device must meet
7.3.4Design outputs: drawings, specifications, software
7.3.5Design reviews at planned stages
7.3.6Verification: the outputs meet the inputs
7.3.7Validation: the device meets the user's needs
7.3.8Transfer of the design to production
7.3.9Control of design changes
7.3.10The design and development file itself

Verification and validation are different questions

Verification asks whether you built the device right: does each output meet the input it answers? It is usually a test against a number. Validation asks whether you built the right device: does it meet the user's need in the intended use? It is done on production-equivalent units, with the people who will use them, in conditions like theirs.

Traceability is the thread

Each requirement should link forward to the output that answers it, the test that verifies it and the risk control it carries, and each test should link back. A table of those links, kept current, is what lets a reviewer check the file in hours rather than weeks. It is also what shows a gap: a requirement never verified, or a test with no requirement behind it.

How to keep it current

  • Write each design input as a requirement that can be tested, and give it a number.
  • Hold a design review at each stage, and record the decisions and the actions.
  • Link each verification report to the requirements it verifies.
  • Put each change through change control, with its effect on risk and on earlier verification.
  • Keep one index of the file, so a reviewer can find any record in it.

Common mistakes

  • Requirements that cannot be tested. "Easy to use" is a need; "set up in under two minutes by a trained nurse" is a requirement.
  • Reviews with no minutes. A decision that was never written down cannot be shown to an auditor.
  • Changes made in the drawings only. A change that skips change control leaves every earlier verification in doubt.
  • Validation on prototypes. It has to be done on units that represent production.
← All insights