Risk Management Specialist

Medical device risk management specialist implementing ISO 14971 throughout product lifecycle. Provides risk analysis, risk evaluation, risk control, and post-production information analysis. Use when user mentions risk management, ISO 14971, risk analysis, FMEA, fault tree analysis, hazard identification, risk control, risk matrix, benefit-risk analysis, residual risk, risk acceptability, or post-market risk.

Alireza Rezvani Updated Sep 8, 2026 20.4k repo stars

Coding & Dev Tools

Install

Press C to copy

$ npx skillmds@latest add alirezarezvani/risk-management-specialist

Installs into ~/.claude/skills (or .claude/skills inside a project). Restart Claude Code to pick it up.

＋ Add to plugin

README badge

[![SkillMD](https://skillmd.com/badge/alirezarezvani/risk-management-specialist.svg)](https://skillmd.com/skills/alirezarezvani/risk-management-specialist)

Trust & safety

2 of 3 audits passed

Last audited Sep 21, 2026 · commit 4c123f2

Permissions this skill uses

Executes scripts
The instructions run shell commands or bundled script files.

Works with: Claude Code Claude.ai OpenAI Codex +

File contents

Risk Management Specialist

ISO 14971:2019 risk management implementation throughout the medical device lifecycle.

Table of Contents

Risk Management Planning Workflow
Risk Analysis Workflow
Risk Evaluation Workflow
Risk Control Workflow
Post-Production Risk Management
Risk Assessment Templates
Decision Frameworks
Tools and References

Risk Management Planning Workflow

Establish risk management process per ISO 14971.

Workflow: Create Risk Management Plan

Define scope of risk management activities:
- Medical device identification
- Lifecycle stages covered
- Applicable standards and regulations
Establish risk acceptability criteria:
- Define probability categories (P1-P5)
- Define severity categories (S1-S5)
- Create risk matrix with acceptance thresholds
Assign responsibilities:
- Risk management lead
- Subject matter experts
- Approval authorities
Define verification activities:
- Methods for control verification
- Acceptance criteria
Plan production and post-production activities:
- Information sources
- Review triggers
- Update procedures
Obtain plan approval
Establish risk management file
Validation: Plan approved; acceptability criteria defined; responsibilities assigned; file established

Risk Management Plan Content

Section	Content	Evidence
Scope	Device and lifecycle coverage	Scope statement
Criteria	Risk acceptability matrix	Risk matrix document
Responsibilities	Roles and authorities	RACI chart
Verification	Methods and acceptance	Verification plan
Production/Post-Production	Monitoring activities	Surveillance plan

Risk Acceptability Matrix (5x5)

Probability \ Severity	Negligible	Minor	Serious	Critical	Catastrophic
Frequent (P5)	Medium	High	High	Unacceptable	Unacceptable
Probable (P4)	Medium	Medium	High	High	Unacceptable
Occasional (P3)	Low	Medium	Medium	High	High
Remote (P2)	Low	Low	Medium	Medium	High
Improbable (P1)	Low	Low	Low	Medium	Medium

Risk Level Actions

Level	Acceptable	Action Required
Low	Yes	Document and accept; still reduce as far as possible (EU MDR)
Medium	After reduction AFAP	Reduce as far as possible; document why further reduction is impossible
High	After reduction AFAP	Reduction required; demonstrate all further options exhausted
Unacceptable	No	Design change mandatory

EU MDR — AFAP, not ALARP: For CE-marked devices, risks must be reduced as far as possible (AFAP) without economic considerations (MDR Annex I, GSPR 1–4; EN ISO 14971:2019/A11:2021 Z-annexes deviation). ALARP ("as low as reasonably practicable"), which permits cost-benefit weighing in acceptability decisions, is not an acceptable criterion under the EU MDR — a notified body will flag it. ISO 14971:2019 itself removed ALARP from the normative text. ALARP may persist in some non-EU jurisdictions (e.g., the UK HSE tradition); if used outside the EU, flag the deviation from EU requirements explicitly.

Risk Analysis Workflow

Identify hazards and estimate risks systematically.

Workflow: Conduct Risk Analysis

Define intended use and reasonably foreseeable misuse:
- Medical indication
- Patient population
- User population
- Use environment
Select analysis method(s):
- FMEA for component/function analysis
- FTA for system-level analysis
- HAZOP for process deviations
- Use Error Analysis for user interaction
Identify hazards by category:
- Energy hazards (electrical, mechanical, thermal)
- Biological hazards (bioburden, biocompatibility)
- Chemical hazards (residues, leachables)
- Operational hazards (software, use errors)
Determine hazardous situations:
- Sequence of events
- Foreseeable misuse scenarios
- Single fault conditions
Estimate probability of harm (P1-P5)
Estimate severity of harm (S1-S5)
Document in hazard analysis worksheet
Validation: All hazard categories addressed; all hazards documented; probability and severity assigned

Hazard Categories Checklist

Category	Examples	Analyzed
Electrical	Shock, burns, interference	☐
Mechanical	Crushing, cutting, entrapment	☐
Thermal	Burns, tissue damage	☐
Radiation	Ionizing, non-ionizing	☐
Biological	Infection, biocompatibility	☐
Chemical	Toxicity, irritation	☐
Software	Incorrect output, timing	☐
Use Error	Misuse, perception, cognition	☐
Environment	EMC, mechanical stress	☐

Analysis Method Selection

Situation	Recommended Method
Component failures	FMEA
System-level failure	FTA
Process deviations	HAZOP
User interaction	Use Error Analysis
Software behavior	Software FMEA
Early design phase	PHA

Probability Criteria

Level	Name	Description	Frequency
P5	Frequent	Expected to occur	>10⁻³
P4	Probable	Likely to occur	10⁻³ to 10⁻⁴
P3	Occasional	May occur	10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁵
P2	Remote	Unlikely	10⁻⁵ to 10⁻⁶
P1	Improbable	Very unlikely	<10⁻⁶

Severity Criteria

Level	Name	Description	Harm
S5	Catastrophic	Death	Death
S4	Critical	Permanent impairment	Irreversible injury
S3	Serious	Injury requiring intervention	Reversible injury
S2	Minor	Temporary discomfort	No treatment needed
S1	Negligible	Inconvenience	No injury

See: references/risk-analysis-methods.md

Risk Evaluation Workflow

Evaluate risks against acceptability criteria.

Workflow: Evaluate Identified Risks

Calculate initial risk level from probability × severity
Compare to risk acceptability criteria
For each risk, determine:
- Acceptable: Document and accept (EU MDR: still reduce as far as possible)
- Reduction required (AFAP): Proceed to risk control
- Unacceptable: Mandatory risk control
Document evaluation rationale
Identify risks requiring benefit-risk analysis
Complete benefit-risk analysis if applicable
Compile risk evaluation summary
Validation: All risks evaluated; acceptability determined; rationale documented

Risk Evaluation Decision Tree

Risk Estimated
      │
      ▼
Apply Acceptability Criteria
      │
      ├── Low Risk ──────────► Accept and document
      │
      ├── Medium Risk ───────► Reduce as far as possible (AFAP)
      │   │                    Document why further reduction impossible
      │   ▼
      │   Further reduction possible?
      │   │
      │   Yes──► Implement control
      │   No───► Document AFAP rationale (no economic considerations)
      │
      ├── High Risk ─────────► Risk reduction required
      │   │                    Must demonstrate reduction AFAP
      │   ▼
      │   Implement control
      │   Verify residual risk
      │
      └── Unacceptable ──────► Design change mandatory
                               Cannot proceed without control

AFAP Demonstration Requirements (EU MDR)

Criterion	Evidence Required
All control options considered	Analysis of every feasible control per the hierarchy (design, protective measures, information)
Further reduction impossible	Evidence each remaining option is technically infeasible or does not further reduce risk
State of the art	Comparison to similar devices and current standards
Stakeholder input	Clinical/user perspectives

Economic considerations (cost of further risk reduction) must not enter the EU acceptability decision (MDR Annex I GSPR 2; EN ISO 14971:2019/A11:2021). Cost may inform business decisions about whether to market the device — never whether a risk is acceptable.

Benefit-Risk Analysis Triggers

Situation	Benefit-Risk Required
Residual risk remains high	Yes
No feasible risk reduction	Yes
Novel device	Yes
Unacceptable risk with clinical benefit	Yes
All risks low	No

Risk Control Workflow

Implement and verify risk control measures.

Workflow: Implement Risk Controls

Identify risk control options:
- Inherent safety by design (Priority 1)
- Protective measures in device (Priority 2)
- Information for safety (Priority 3)
Select optimal control following hierarchy
Analyze control for new hazards introduced
Document control in design requirements
Implement control in design
Develop verification protocol
Execute verification and document results
Evaluate residual risk with control in place
Validation: Control implemented; verification passed; residual risk acceptable; no unaddressed new hazards

Risk Control Hierarchy

Priority	Control Type	Examples	Effectiveness
1	Inherent Safety	Eliminate hazard, fail-safe design	Highest
2	Protective Measures	Guards, alarms, automatic shutdown	High
3	Information	Warnings, training, IFU	Lower

Risk Control Option Analysis Template

RISK CONTROL OPTION ANALYSIS

Hazard ID: H-[XXX]
Hazard: [Description]
Initial Risk: P[X] × S[X] = [Level]

OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
| Option | Control Type | New Hazards | Feasibility | Selected |
|--------|--------------|-------------|-------------|----------|
| 1 | [Type] | [Yes/No] | [H/M/L] | [Yes/No] |
| 2 | [Type] | [Yes/No] | [H/M/L] | [Yes/No] |

SELECTED CONTROL: Option [X]
Rationale: [Justification for selection]

IMPLEMENTATION:
- Requirement: [REQ-XXX]
- Design Document: [Reference]

VERIFICATION:
- Method: [Test/Analysis/Review]
- Protocol: [Reference]
- Acceptance Criteria: [Criteria]

Risk Control Verification Methods

Method	When to Use	Evidence
Test	Quantifiable performance	Test report
Inspection	Physical presence	Inspection record
Analysis	Design calculation	Analysis report
Review	Documentation check	Review record

Residual Risk Evaluation

After Control	Action
Acceptable	Document, proceed
Reduced AFAP	Document rationale (no economic considerations), proceed
Still unacceptable	Additional control or design change
New hazard introduced	Analyze and control new hazard

Post-Production Risk Management

Monitor and update risk management throughout product lifecycle.

Workflow: Post-Production Risk Monitoring

Identify information sources:
- Customer complaints
- Service reports
- Vigilance/adverse events
- Literature monitoring
- Clinical studies
Establish collection procedures
Define review triggers:
- New hazard identified
- Increased frequency of known hazard
- Serious incident
- Regulatory feedback
Analyze incoming information for risk relevance
Update risk management file as needed
Communicate significant findings
Conduct periodic risk management review
Validation: Information sources monitored; file current; reviews completed per schedule

Information Sources

Source	Information Type	Review Frequency
Complaints	Use issues, failures	Continuous
Service	Field failures, repairs	Monthly
Vigilance	Serious incidents	Immediate
Literature	Similar device issues	Quarterly
Regulatory	Authority feedback	As received
Clinical	PMCF data	Per plan

Risk Management File Update Triggers

Trigger	Response Time	Action
Serious incident	Immediate	Full risk review
New hazard identified	30 days	Risk analysis update
Trend increase	60 days	Trend analysis
Design change	Before implementation	Impact assessment
Standards update	Per transition period	Gap analysis

Periodic Review Requirements

Review Element	Frequency
Risk management file completeness	Annual
Risk control effectiveness	Annual
Post-market information analysis	Quarterly
Risk-benefit conclusions	Annual or on new data

Risk Assessment Templates

→ See references/risk-assessment-templates.md for details

Decision Frameworks

Risk Control Selection

What is the risk level?
        │
        ├── Unacceptable ──► Can hazard be eliminated?
        │                    │
        │                Yes─┴─No
        │                 │     │
        │                 ▼     ▼
        │            Eliminate  Can protective
        │            hazard     measure reduce?
        │                           │
        │                       Yes─┴─No
        │                        │     │
        │                        ▼     ▼
        │                   Add       Add warning
        │                   protection + training
        │
        └── High/Medium ──► Apply hierarchy
                            starting at Level 1

New Hazard Analysis

Question	If Yes	If No
Does control introduce new hazard?	Analyze new hazard	Proceed
Is new risk higher than original?	Reject control option	Acceptable trade-off
Can new hazard be controlled?	Add control	Reject control option

Risk Acceptability Decision

Condition	Decision
All risks Low	Acceptable
Medium risks reduced AFAP	Acceptable
High risks reduced AFAP, documented	Acceptable if benefits outweigh
Any Unacceptable residual	Not acceptable - redesign

Tools and References

Scripts

Tool	Purpose	Usage
risk_matrix_calculator.py	Calculate risk levels and FMEA RPN	`python risk_matrix_calculator.py --help`

Risk Matrix Calculator Features:

ISO 14971 5x5 risk matrix calculation
FMEA RPN (Risk Priority Number) calculation
Interactive mode for guided assessment
Display risk criteria definitions
JSON output for integration

References

Document	Content
iso14971-implementation-guide.md	Complete ISO 14971:2019 implementation with templates
risk-analysis-methods.md	FMEA, FTA, HAZOP, Use Error Analysis methods

Quick Reference: ISO 14971 Process

Stage	Key Activities	Output
Planning	Define scope, criteria, responsibilities	Risk Management Plan
Analysis	Identify hazards, estimate risk	Hazard Analysis
Evaluation	Compare to criteria, AFAP assessment (EU)	Risk Evaluation
Control	Implement hierarchy, verify	Risk Control Records
Residual	Overall assessment, benefit-risk	Risk Management Report
Production	Monitor, review, update	Updated RM File

Related Skills

Skill	Integration Point
quality-manager-qms-iso13485	QMS integration
capa-officer	Risk-based CAPA
regulatory-affairs-head	Regulatory submissions
quality-documentation-manager	Risk file management

---name: risk-management-specialistdescription: Medical device risk management specialist implementing ISO 14971 throughout product lifecycle. Provides risk analysis, risk evaluation, risk control, and post-production information analysis. Use when user mentions risk management, ISO 14971, risk analysis, FMEA, fault tree analysis, hazard identification, risk control, risk matrix, benefit-risk analysis, residual risk, risk acceptability, or post-market risk.---# Risk Management SpecialistISO 14971:2019 risk management implementation throughout the medical device lifecycle.---## Table of Contents- [Risk Management Planning Workflow](#risk-management-planning-workflow)- [Risk Analysis Workflow](#risk-analysis-workflow)- [Risk Evaluation Workflow](#risk-evaluation-workflow)- [Risk Control Workflow](#risk-control-workflow)- [Post-Production Risk Management](#post-production-risk-management)- [Risk Assessment Templates](#risk-assessment-templates)- [Decision Frameworks](#decision-frameworks)- [Tools and References](#tools-and-references)---## Risk Management Planning WorkflowEstablish risk management process per ISO 14971.### Workflow: Create Risk Management Plan1. Define scope of risk management activities: - Medical device identification - Lifecycle stages covered - Applicable standards and regulations2. Establish risk acceptability criteria: - Define probability categories (P1-P5) - Define severity categories (S1-S5) - Create risk matrix with acceptance thresholds3. Assign responsibilities: - Risk management lead - Subject matter experts - Approval authorities4. Define verification activities: - Methods for control verification - Acceptance criteria5. Plan production and post-production activities: - Information sources - Review triggers - Update procedures6. Obtain plan approval7. Establish risk management file8. **Validation:** Plan approved; acceptability criteria defined; responsibilities assigned; file established### Risk Management Plan Content| Section | Content | Evidence ||---------|---------|----------|| Scope | Device and lifecycle coverage | Scope statement || Criteria | Risk acceptability matrix | Risk matrix document || Responsibilities | Roles and authorities | RACI chart || Verification | Methods and acceptance | Verification plan || Production/Post-Production | Monitoring activities | Surveillance plan |### Risk Acceptability Matrix (5x5)| Probability \ Severity | Negligible | Minor | Serious | Critical | Catastrophic ||------------------------|------------|-------|---------|----------|--------------|| **Frequent (P5)** | Medium | High | High | Unacceptable | Unacceptable || **Probable (P4)** | Medium | Medium | High | High | Unacceptable || **Occasional (P3)** | Low | Medium | Medium | High | High || **Remote (P2)** | Low | Low | Medium | Medium | High || **Improbable (P1)** | Low | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |### Risk Level Actions| Level | Acceptable | Action Required ||-------|------------|-----------------|| Low | Yes | Document and accept; still reduce as far as possible (EU MDR) || Medium | After reduction AFAP | Reduce as far as possible; document why further reduction is impossible || High | After reduction AFAP | Reduction required; demonstrate all further options exhausted || Unacceptable | No | Design change mandatory |> **EU MDR — AFAP, not ALARP:** For CE-marked devices, risks must be reduced **as far as possible (AFAP)** without economic considerations (MDR Annex I, GSPR 1–4; EN ISO 14971:2019/A11:2021 Z-annexes deviation). ALARP ("as low as reasonably practicable"), which permits cost-benefit weighing in acceptability decisions, is **not an acceptable criterion under the EU MDR** — a notified body will flag it. ISO 14971:2019 itself removed ALARP from the normative text. ALARP may persist in some non-EU jurisdictions (e.g., the UK HSE tradition); if used outside the EU, flag the deviation from EU requirements explicitly.---## Risk Analysis WorkflowIdentify hazards and estimate risks systematically.### Workflow: Conduct Risk Analysis1. Define intended use and reasonably foreseeable misuse: - Medical indication - Patient population - User population - Use environment2. Select analysis method(s): - FMEA for component/function analysis - FTA for system-level analysis - HAZOP for process deviations - Use Error Analysis for user interaction3. Identify hazards by category: - Energy hazards (electrical, mechanical, thermal) - Biological hazards (bioburden, biocompatibility) - Chemical hazards (residues, leachables) - Operational hazards (software, use errors)4. Determine hazardous situations: - Sequence of events - Foreseeable misuse scenarios - Single fault conditions5. Estimate probability of harm (P1-P5)6. Estimate severity of harm (S1-S5)7. Document in hazard analysis worksheet8. **Validation:** All hazard categories addressed; all hazards documented; probability and severity assigned### Hazard Categories Checklist| Category | Examples | Analyzed ||----------|----------|----------|| Electrical | Shock, burns, interference | ☐ || Mechanical | Crushing, cutting, entrapment | ☐ || Thermal | Burns, tissue damage | ☐ || Radiation | Ionizing, non-ionizing | ☐ || Biological | Infection, biocompatibility | ☐ || Chemical | Toxicity, irritation | ☐ || Software | Incorrect output, timing | ☐ || Use Error | Misuse, perception, cognition | ☐ || Environment | EMC, mechanical stress | ☐ |### Analysis Method Selection| Situation | Recommended Method ||-----------|-------------------|| Component failures | FMEA || System-level failure | FTA || Process deviations | HAZOP || User interaction | Use Error Analysis || Software behavior | Software FMEA || Early design phase | PHA |### Probability Criteria| Level | Name | Description | Frequency ||-------|------|-------------|-----------|| P5 | Frequent | Expected to occur | >10⁻³ || P4 | Probable | Likely to occur | 10⁻³ to 10⁻⁴ || P3 | Occasional | May occur | 10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁵ || P2 | Remote | Unlikely | 10⁻⁵ to 10⁻⁶ || P1 | Improbable | Very unlikely | <10⁻⁶ |### Severity Criteria| Level | Name | Description | Harm ||-------|------|-------------|------|| S5 | Catastrophic | Death | Death || S4 | Critical | Permanent impairment | Irreversible injury || S3 | Serious | Injury requiring intervention | Reversible injury || S2 | Minor | Temporary discomfort | No treatment needed || S1 | Negligible | Inconvenience | No injury |See: [references/risk-analysis-methods.md](references/risk-analysis-methods.md)---## Risk Evaluation WorkflowEvaluate risks against acceptability criteria.### Workflow: Evaluate Identified Risks1. Calculate initial risk level from probability × severity2. Compare to risk acceptability criteria3. For each risk, determine: - Acceptable: Document and accept (EU MDR: still reduce as far as possible) - Reduction required (AFAP): Proceed to risk control - Unacceptable: Mandatory risk control4. Document evaluation rationale5. Identify risks requiring benefit-risk analysis6. Complete benefit-risk analysis if applicable7. Compile risk evaluation summary8. **Validation:** All risks evaluated; acceptability determined; rationale documented### Risk Evaluation Decision Tree```Risk Estimated │ ▼Apply Acceptability Criteria │ ├── Low Risk ──────────► Accept and document │ ├── Medium Risk ───────► Reduce as far as possible (AFAP) │ │ Document why further reduction impossible │ ▼ │ Further reduction possible? │ │ │ Yes──► Implement control │ No───► Document AFAP rationale (no economic considerations) │ ├── High Risk ─────────► Risk reduction required │ │ Must demonstrate reduction AFAP │ ▼ │ Implement control │ Verify residual risk │ └── Unacceptable ──────► Design change mandatory Cannot proceed without control```### AFAP Demonstration Requirements (EU MDR)| Criterion | Evidence Required ||-----------|-------------------|| All control options considered | Analysis of every feasible control per the hierarchy (design, protective measures, information) || Further reduction impossible | Evidence each remaining option is technically infeasible or does not further reduce risk || State of the art | Comparison to similar devices and current standards || Stakeholder input | Clinical/user perspectives |> Economic considerations (cost of further risk reduction) **must not** enter the EU acceptability decision (MDR Annex I GSPR 2; EN ISO 14971:2019/A11:2021). Cost may inform business decisions about whether to market the device — never whether a risk is acceptable.### Benefit-Risk Analysis Triggers| Situation | Benefit-Risk Required ||-----------|----------------------|| Residual risk remains high | Yes || No feasible risk reduction | Yes || Novel device | Yes || Unacceptable risk with clinical benefit | Yes || All risks low | No |---## Risk Control WorkflowImplement and verify risk control measures.### Workflow: Implement Risk Controls1. Identify risk control options: - Inherent safety by design (Priority 1) - Protective measures in device (Priority 2) - Information for safety (Priority 3)2. Select optimal control following hierarchy3. Analyze control for new hazards introduced4. Document control in design requirements5. Implement control in design6. Develop verification protocol7. Execute verification and document results8. Evaluate residual risk with control in place9. **Validation:** Control implemented; verification passed; residual risk acceptable; no unaddressed new hazards### Risk Control Hierarchy| Priority | Control Type | Examples | Effectiveness ||----------|--------------|----------|---------------|| 1 | Inherent Safety | Eliminate hazard, fail-safe design | Highest || 2 | Protective Measures | Guards, alarms, automatic shutdown | High || 3 | Information | Warnings, training, IFU | Lower |### Risk Control Option Analysis Template```RISK CONTROL OPTION ANALYSISHazard ID: H-[XXX]Hazard: [Description]Initial Risk: P[X] × S[X] = [Level]OPTIONS CONSIDERED:| Option | Control Type | New Hazards | Feasibility | Selected ||--------|--------------|-------------|-------------|----------|| 1 | [Type] | [Yes/No] | [H/M/L] | [Yes/No] || 2 | [Type] | [Yes/No] | [H/M/L] | [Yes/No] |SELECTED CONTROL: Option [X]Rationale: [Justification for selection]IMPLEMENTATION:- Requirement: [REQ-XXX]- Design Document: [Reference]VERIFICATION:- Method: [Test/Analysis/Review]- Protocol: [Reference]- Acceptance Criteria: [Criteria]```### Risk Control Verification Methods| Method | When to Use | Evidence ||--------|-------------|----------|| Test | Quantifiable performance | Test report || Inspection | Physical presence | Inspection record || Analysis | Design calculation | Analysis report || Review | Documentation check | Review record |### Residual Risk Evaluation| After Control | Action ||---------------|--------|| Acceptable | Document, proceed || Reduced AFAP | Document rationale (no economic considerations), proceed || Still unacceptable | Additional control or design change || New hazard introduced | Analyze and control new hazard |---## Post-Production Risk ManagementMonitor and update risk management throughout product lifecycle.### Workflow: Post-Production Risk Monitoring1. Identify information sources: - Customer complaints - Service reports - Vigilance/adverse events - Literature monitoring - Clinical studies2. Establish collection procedures3. Define review triggers: - New hazard identified - Increased frequency of known hazard - Serious incident - Regulatory feedback4. Analyze incoming information for risk relevance5. Update risk management file as needed6. Communicate significant findings7. Conduct periodic risk management review8. **Validation:** Information sources monitored; file current; reviews completed per schedule### Information Sources| Source | Information Type | Review Frequency ||--------|------------------|------------------|| Complaints | Use issues, failures | Continuous || Service | Field failures, repairs | Monthly || Vigilance | Serious incidents | Immediate || Literature | Similar device issues | Quarterly || Regulatory | Authority feedback | As received || Clinical | PMCF data | Per plan |### Risk Management File Update Triggers| Trigger | Response Time | Action ||---------|---------------|--------|| Serious incident | Immediate | Full risk review || New hazard identified | 30 days | Risk analysis update || Trend increase | 60 days | Trend analysis || Design change | Before implementation | Impact assessment || Standards update | Per transition period | Gap analysis |### Periodic Review Requirements| Review Element | Frequency ||----------------|-----------|| Risk management file completeness | Annual || Risk control effectiveness | Annual || Post-market information analysis | Quarterly || Risk-benefit conclusions | Annual or on new data |---## Risk Assessment Templates→ See references/risk-assessment-templates.md for details## Decision Frameworks### Risk Control Selection```What is the risk level? │ ├── Unacceptable ──► Can hazard be eliminated? │ │ │ Yes─┴─No │ │ │ │ ▼ ▼ │ Eliminate Can protective │ hazard measure reduce? │ │ │ Yes─┴─No │ │ │ │ ▼ ▼ │ Add Add warning │ protection + training │ └── High/Medium ──► Apply hierarchy starting at Level 1```### New Hazard Analysis| Question | If Yes | If No ||----------|--------|-------|| Does control introduce new hazard? | Analyze new hazard | Proceed || Is new risk higher than original? | Reject control option | Acceptable trade-off || Can new hazard be controlled? | Add control | Reject control option |### Risk Acceptability Decision| Condition | Decision ||-----------|----------|| All risks Low | Acceptable || Medium risks reduced AFAP | Acceptable || High risks reduced AFAP, documented | Acceptable if benefits outweigh || Any Unacceptable residual | Not acceptable - redesign |---## Tools and References### Scripts| Tool | Purpose | Usage ||------|---------|-------|| [risk_matrix_calculator.py](scripts/risk_matrix_calculator.py) | Calculate risk levels and FMEA RPN | `python risk_matrix_calculator.py --help` |**Risk Matrix Calculator Features:**- ISO 14971 5x5 risk matrix calculation- FMEA RPN (Risk Priority Number) calculation- Interactive mode for guided assessment- Display risk criteria definitions- JSON output for integration### References| Document | Content ||----------|---------|| [iso14971-implementation-guide.md](references/iso14971-implementation-guide.md) | Complete ISO 14971:2019 implementation with templates || [risk-analysis-methods.md](references/risk-analysis-methods.md) | FMEA, FTA, HAZOP, Use Error Analysis methods |### Quick Reference: ISO 14971 Process| Stage | Key Activities | Output ||-------|----------------|--------|| Planning | Define scope, criteria, responsibilities | Risk Management Plan || Analysis | Identify hazards, estimate risk | Hazard Analysis || Evaluation | Compare to criteria, AFAP assessment (EU) | Risk Evaluation || Control | Implement hierarchy, verify | Risk Control Records || Residual | Overall assessment, benefit-risk | Risk Management Report || Production | Monitor, review, update | Updated RM File |---## Related Skills| Skill | Integration Point ||-------|-------------------|| [quality-manager-qms-iso13485](../quality-manager-qms-iso13485/) | QMS integration || [capa-officer](../capa-officer/) | Risk-based CAPA || [regulatory-affairs-head](../regulatory-affairs-head/) | Regulatory submissions || [quality-documentation-manager](../quality-documentation-manager/) | Risk file management |

alirezarezvani/claude-skills/tree/main/ra-qm-team/skills/risk-management-specialist commit 4c123f2b46

Frequently asked questions

npx skillmds@latest add alirezarezvani/risk-management-specialist