FDA Consultant Specialist
FDA regulatory consulting for medical device manufacturers covering submission pathways, Quality System Regulation (QSR), HIPAA compliance, and device cybersecurity requirements.
Table of Contents
Clarify First
Before selecting a pathway or assessing compliance, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:
Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the analysis.
FDA Pathway Selection
Determine the appropriate FDA regulatory pathway based on device classification and predicate availability.
Decision Framework
Predicate device exists?
├── YES → Substantially equivalent?
│ ├── YES → 510(k) Pathway
│ │ ├── No design changes → Abbreviated 510(k)
│ │ ├── Manufacturing only → Special 510(k)
│ │ └── Design/performance → Traditional 510(k)
│ └── NO → PMA or De Novo
└── NO → Novel device?
├── Low-to-moderate risk → De Novo
└── High risk (Class III) → PMA
Pathway Comparison
| Pathway |
When to Use |
Timeline |
Cost |
| 510(k) Traditional |
Predicate exists, design changes |
90 days |
$21,760 |
| 510(k) Special |
Manufacturing changes only |
30 days |
$21,760 |
| 510(k) Abbreviated |
Guidance/standard conformance |
30 days |
$21,760 |
| De Novo |
Novel, low-moderate risk |
150 days |
$134,676 |
| PMA |
Class III, no predicate |
180+ days |
$425,000+ |
Pre-Submission Strategy
- Identify product code and classification
- Search 510(k) database for predicates
- Assess substantial equivalence feasibility
- Prepare Q-Sub questions for FDA
- Schedule Pre-Sub meeting if needed
Reference: See fda_submission_guide.md for pathway decision matrices and submission requirements.
510(k) Submission Process
Workflow
Phase 1: Planning
├── Step 1: Identify predicate device(s)
├── Step 2: Compare intended use and technology
├── Step 3: Determine testing requirements
└── Checkpoint: SE argument feasible?
Phase 2: Preparation
├── Step 4: Complete performance testing
├── Step 5: Prepare device description
├── Step 6: Document SE comparison
├── Step 7: Finalize labeling
└── Checkpoint: All required sections complete?
Phase 3: Submission
├── Step 8: Assemble submission package
├── Step 9: Submit via eSTAR
├── Step 10: Track acknowledgment
└── Checkpoint: Submission accepted?
Phase 4: Review
├── Step 11: Monitor review status
├── Step 12: Respond to AI requests
├── Step 13: Receive decision
└── Verification: SE letter received?
Required Sections (21 CFR 807.87)
| Section |
Content |
| Cover Letter |
Submission type, device ID, contact info |
| Form 3514 |
CDRH premarket review cover sheet |
| Device Description |
Physical description, principles of operation |
| Indications for Use |
Form 3881, patient population, use environment |
| SE Comparison |
Side-by-side comparison with predicate |
| Performance Testing |
Bench, biocompatibility, electrical safety |
| Software Documentation |
Level of concern, hazard analysis (IEC 62304) |
| Labeling |
IFU, package labels, warnings |
| 510(k) Summary |
Public summary of submission |
Common RTA Issues
| Issue |
Prevention |
| Missing user fee |
Verify payment before submission |
| Incomplete Form 3514 |
Review all fields, ensure signature |
| No predicate identified |
Confirm K-number in FDA database |
| Inadequate SE comparison |
Address all technological characteristics |
QSR Compliance
Quality System Regulation (21 CFR Part 820) requirements for medical device manufacturers.
Key Subsystems
| Section |
Title |
Focus |
| 820.20 |
Management Responsibility |
Quality policy, org structure, management review |
| 820.30 |
Design Controls |
Input, output, review, verification, validation |
| 820.40 |
Document Controls |
Approval, distribution, change control |
| 820.50 |
Purchasing Controls |
Supplier qualification, purchasing data |
| 820.70 |
Production Controls |
Process validation, environmental controls |
| 820.100 |
CAPA |
Root cause analysis, corrective actions |
| 820.181 |
Device Master Record |
Specifications, procedures, acceptance criteria |
Design Controls Workflow (820.30)
Step 1: Design Input
└── Capture user needs, intended use, regulatory requirements
Verification: Inputs reviewed and approved?
Step 2: Design Output
└── Create specifications, drawings, software architecture
Verification: Outputs traceable to inputs?
Step 3: Design Review
└── Conduct reviews at each phase milestone
Verification: Review records with signatures?
Step 4: Design Verification
└── Perform testing against specifications
Verification: All tests pass acceptance criteria?
Step 5: Design Validation
└── Confirm device meets user needs in actual use conditions
Verification: Validation report approved?
Step 6: Design Transfer
└── Release to production with DMR complete
Verification: Transfer checklist complete?
CAPA Process (820.100)
- Identify: Document nonconformity or potential problem
- Investigate: Perform root cause analysis (5 Whys, Fishbone)
- Plan: Define corrective/preventive actions
- Implement: Execute actions, update documentation
- Verify: Confirm implementation complete
- Effectiveness: Monitor for recurrence (30-90 days)
- Close: Management approval and closure
Reference: See qsr_compliance_requirements.md for detailed QSR implementation guidance.
HIPAA for Medical Devices
HIPAA requirements for devices that create, store, transmit, or access Protected Health Information (PHI).
Applicability
| Device Type |
HIPAA Applies |
| Standalone diagnostic (no data transmission) |
No |
| Connected device transmitting patient data |
Yes |
| Device with EHR integration |
Yes |
| SaMD storing patient information |
Yes |
| Wellness app (no diagnosis) |
Only if stores PHI |
Required Safeguards
Administrative (§164.308)
├── Security officer designation
├── Risk analysis and management
├── Workforce training
├── Incident response procedures
└── Business associate agreements
Physical (§164.310)
├── Facility access controls
├── Workstation security
└── Device disposal procedures
Technical (§164.312)
├── Access control (unique IDs, auto-logoff)
├── Audit controls (logging)
├── Integrity controls (checksums, hashes)
├── Authentication (MFA recommended)
└── Transmission security (TLS 1.2+)
Risk Assessment Steps
- Inventory all systems handling ePHI
- Document data flows (collection, storage, transmission)
- Identify threats and vulnerabilities
- Assess likelihood and impact
- Determine risk levels
- Implement controls
- Document residual risk
Reference: See hipaa_compliance_framework.md for implementation checklists and BAA templates.
Device Cybersecurity
FDA cybersecurity requirements for connected medical devices.
Premarket Requirements
| Element |
Description |
| Threat Model |
STRIDE analysis, attack trees, trust boundaries |
| Security Controls |
Authentication, encryption, access control |
| SBOM |
Software Bill of Materials (CycloneDX or SPDX) |
| Security Testing |
Penetration testing, vulnerability scanning |
| Vulnerability Plan |
Disclosure process, patch management |
Device Tier Classification
Tier 1 (Higher Risk):
- Connects to network/internet
- Cybersecurity incident could cause patient harm
Tier 2 (Standard Risk):
- All other connected devices
Postmarket Obligations
- Monitor NVD and ICS-CERT for vulnerabilities
- Assess applicability to device components
- Develop and test patches
- Communicate with customers
- Report to FDA per guidance
Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure
Researcher Report
↓
Acknowledgment (48 hours)
↓
Initial Assessment (5 days)
↓
Fix Development
↓
Coordinated Public Disclosure
Reference: See device_cybersecurity_guidance.md for SBOM format examples and threat modeling templates.
Resources
scripts/
| Script |
Purpose |
fda_submission_tracker.py |
Track 510(k)/PMA/De Novo submission milestones and timelines |
qsr_compliance_checker.py |
Assess 21 CFR 820 compliance against project documentation |
hipaa_risk_assessment.py |
Evaluate HIPAA safeguards in medical device software |
references/
| File |
Content |
fda_submission_guide.md |
510(k), De Novo, PMA submission requirements and checklists |
qsr_compliance_requirements.md |
21 CFR 820 implementation guide with templates |
hipaa_compliance_framework.md |
HIPAA Security Rule safeguards and BAA requirements |
device_cybersecurity_guidance.md |
FDA cybersecurity requirements, SBOM, threat modeling |
fda_capa_requirements.md |
CAPA process, root cause analysis, effectiveness verification |
Usage Examples
# Track FDA submission status
python scripts/fda_submission_tracker.py /path/to/project --type 510k
# Assess QSR compliance
python scripts/qsr_compliance_checker.py /path/to/project --section 820.30
# Run HIPAA risk assessment
python scripts/hipaa_risk_assessment.py /path/to/project --category technical
FDA QMSR — Quality Management System Regulation
Transition from QSR (21 CFR 820) to QMSR
The FDA finalized the Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR) in January 2024, replacing the legacy Quality System Regulation (QSR) with ISO 13485:2016 alignment. The rule became effective February 2, 2026.
| Aspect |
Legacy QSR (21 CFR 820) |
QMSR (Effective Feb 2026) |
| Framework |
FDA-specific prescriptive requirements |
Incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference |
| Design controls |
820.30 (FDA-specific) |
ISO 13485 Clause 7.3 |
| CAPA |
820.100 |
ISO 13485 Clause 8.5 |
| Document control |
820.40 |
ISO 13485 Clause 4.2 |
| Management responsibility |
820.20 |
ISO 13485 Clause 5 |
| Purchasing controls |
820.50 |
ISO 13485 Clause 7.4 |
Key differences under QMSR:
- ISO 13485:2016 is incorporated by reference as the primary QMS standard
- FDA retains certain device-specific requirements not covered by ISO 13485 (e.g., complaint handling per 21 CFR 820.198)
- Organizations already ISO 13485 certified have a significant head start
- No separate FDA registration for QMS — single system serves both ISO and FDA
QMSR Transition Checklist
AI/ML-Based Software as Medical Device (SaMD)
FDA AI/ML SaMD Framework
| Category |
Description |
FDA Pathway |
| Locked algorithm |
Algorithm does not change after deployment |
Standard 510(k)/De Novo/PMA |
| Adaptive algorithm (PCCP) |
Algorithm learns and changes with use |
Predetermined Change Control Plan |
| Continuously learning |
Real-time adaptation from new data |
Case-by-case; PCCP required |
AI/ML SaMD Submission Requirements
AI/ML SaMD Submission Package
├── Algorithm description and architecture
├── Training data characterization
│ ├── Data sources and collection methods
│ ├── Demographics and representativeness
│ ├── Data quality and labeling methodology
│ └── Training/validation/test split rationale
├── Performance evaluation
│ ├── Pre-specified performance goals
│ ├── Standalone performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, AUC)
│ ├── Subgroup analysis (age, sex, race, site)
│ └── Real-world performance data (if available)
├── Reference standard justification
├── Predetermined Change Control Plan (if adaptive)
├── Human factors / user interface
├── Cybersecurity documentation
└── Software documentation per IEC 62304
Good Machine Learning Practice (GMLP) Principles
- Multi-disciplinary expertise throughout product lifecycle
- Good software engineering and security practices
- Representative training and test datasets
- Independent test datasets separate from training
- Reference datasets based on best available methods
- Model design tailored to available data and intended use
- Focus on performance of human-AI team
- Clinical study testing demonstrates real-world performance
- Users provided clear, essential information
- Deployed models monitored for performance with retraining managed
Predetermined Change Control Plan (PCCP) for AI/ML Devices
PCCP Structure
| Section |
Content |
Evidence |
| Description of modifications |
Types of changes the algorithm will make |
Change specification document |
| Modification protocol |
How changes will be developed and tested |
Validation protocol |
| Impact assessment |
How each change type affects safety and effectiveness |
Risk analysis per change type |
| Performance monitoring |
Ongoing real-world performance tracking |
Monitoring plan with metrics |
| Update verification |
How each update will be verified before deployment |
Verification and validation plan |
| Transparency |
How users will be notified of changes |
Communication plan |
PCCP Change Categories
| Category |
Example |
Verification Level |
| Performance improvement |
Retrained model with additional data |
Automated testing + clinical validation |
| Input adaptation |
New imaging modality support |
Full V&V cycle |
| Output modification |
New risk categories or confidence levels |
Clinical study |
| Architecture change |
Model architecture update |
New submission (510(k)/PMA supplement) |
Enhanced Cybersecurity Requirements (PATCH Act)
The PATCH Act (effective March 2023, codified in FD&C Act §524B) requires:
| Requirement |
Details |
Evidence |
| Cybersecurity plan |
Submit plan to monitor, identify, and address vulnerabilities |
Premarket submission section |
| SBOM |
Software Bill of Materials including commercial, open-source, off-the-shelf components |
CycloneDX or SPDX format |
| Patch/update capability |
Design device to be patchable throughout lifecycle |
Architecture documentation |
| Coordinated vulnerability disclosure |
Establish and maintain CVD process |
Published security policy |
| Postmarket updates |
Provide patches and updates in a reasonably justified cycle |
Patch management plan |
Cybersecurity Documentation for Premarket Submissions
Cybersecurity Premarket Package
├── Security risk assessment
│ ├── Threat model (STRIDE or equivalent)
│ ├── Security risk analysis per AAMI TIR57
│ └── Attack surface analysis
├── Security architecture
│ ├── Security controls implementation
│ ├── Cryptographic architecture
│ └── Network architecture and trust boundaries
├── SBOM (Software Bill of Materials)
│ ├── All software components (commercial, open-source, custom)
│ ├── Version information
│ └── Known vulnerability status
├── Security testing
│ ├── Static analysis (SAST)
│ ├── Dynamic analysis (DAST)
│ ├── Penetration testing report
│ ├── Fuzz testing results
│ └── Vulnerability scanning results
├── Lifecycle security plan
│ ├── Patch management process
│ ├── End-of-life/end-of-support plan
│ └── Customer communication plan
└── Coordinated vulnerability disclosure policy
Cross-Reference: EU AI Act for AI Medical Devices
AI-enabled medical devices must comply with both FDA requirements and EU AI Act when marketed in both jurisdictions:
| Aspect |
FDA Approach |
EU AI Act Approach |
Harmonization Strategy |
| Risk classification |
SaMD risk framework (IMDRF) |
Annex III high-risk (medical devices) |
Map to both frameworks; use higher standard |
| Transparency |
Labeling requirements |
Art. 13 transparency obligations |
Unified transparency documentation |
| Data governance |
GMLP principles |
Art. 10 data and data governance |
Comprehensive data quality program |
| Human oversight |
Human factors per IEC 62366 |
Art. 14 human oversight |
Integrated human factors + oversight design |
| Post-market |
Real-world performance monitoring |
Art. 72 post-market monitoring |
Single monitoring system serving both |
| Technical documentation |
FDA premarket submission |
Annex IV technical documentation |
Unified technical file |
See also: ../mdr-745-specialist/SKILL.md for EU MDR classification of AI/ML medical devices and ../risk-management-specialist/SKILL.md for ISO 14971 risk management for AI devices.
Updated 510(k) Electronic Submission Requirements (eSTAR)
eSTAR Mandate
As of October 1, 2023, FDA requires all 510(k) submissions to use the eSTAR template format. Paper submissions are no longer accepted.
| eSTAR Requirement |
Details |
| Template |
FDA eSTAR template (fillable PDF) |
| Format |
Structured data fields + attachments |
| Attachments |
PDF/A format, bookmarked, OCR-searchable |
| File naming |
FDA naming convention required |
| Submission portal |
CDRH Customer Collaboration Portal or FDA ESG |
| Maximum file size |
100MB per individual file; no total limit |
eSTAR Section Mapping
| eSTAR Section |
Content |
Common Deficiencies |
| Administrative |
Cover letter, user fee, truthful/accurate statement |
Missing signatures, incorrect fee |
| Device Description |
Complete device description with images/diagrams |
Insufficient detail, missing accessories |
| Substantial Equivalence |
Predicate comparison table |
Incomplete comparison criteria |
| Performance Testing |
All test reports with summaries |
Missing acceptance criteria, incomplete protocols |
| Software |
Level of concern, hazard analysis, architecture |
Outdated IEC 62304 compliance |
| Biocompatibility |
ISO 10993 evaluation or testing |
Missing risk assessment, incomplete contact analysis |
| Sterility |
Sterilization validation summary |
Missing reprocessing instructions (reusable devices) |
| Labeling |
Device labels, IFU, patient materials |
Non-compliant with 21 CFR 801 |
| EMC/Electrical Safety |
IEC 60601-1 compliance |
Missing particular standards |
| Clinical |
Clinical data summary (if applicable) |
Insufficient clinical evidence for new indications |
Cross-Framework: FDA ↔ MDR ↔ ISO 13485 Mapping
| Process Area |
FDA (QMSR/QSR) |
EU MDR 2017/745 |
ISO 13485:2016 |
| Quality management system |
21 CFR 820 / QMSR |
Annex IX, Annex XI |
Clause 4 |
| Management responsibility |
820.20 / ISO 13485 Cl. 5 |
Annex IX §2.2 |
Clause 5 |
| Design controls |
820.30 / ISO 13485 Cl. 7.3 |
Annex II §6.1, GSPR |
Clause 7.3 |
| Document control |
820.40 / ISO 13485 Cl. 4.2 |
Annex IX §2.3 |
Clause 4.2 |
| Purchasing |
820.50 / ISO 13485 Cl. 7.4 |
Annex IX §2.4 |
Clause 7.4 |
| Production |
820.70 / ISO 13485 Cl. 7.5 |
Annex IX §2.5 |
Clause 7.5 |
| CAPA |
820.100 / ISO 13485 Cl. 8.5 |
Art. 83 (PMS), Art. 89 (FSCA) |
Clause 8.5 |
| Risk management |
820.30(g) / ISO 14971 |
Annex I (GSPR), ISO 14971 |
Clause 7.1 |
| Clinical evidence |
820.30(f) / clinical data |
Annex XIV (clinical evaluation) |
N/A (separate) |
| Post-market |
820.198 / MDR/MedWatch |
Art. 83-86 (PMS), Art. 87-92 (vigilance) |
Clause 8.2.1-8.2.3 |
| Labeling |
21 CFR 801 |
Art. 10-13, Annex I Ch. III |
N/A (separate) |
| UDI |
21 CFR 830 (FDA UDI) |
Art. 27-29 (UDI-DI/PI) |
N/A (separate) |
| Cybersecurity |
§524B FD&C (PATCH Act) |
MDCG 2019-16 |
N/A (separate) |
| AI/ML devices |
AI/ML SaMD framework + PCCP |
EU AI Act + MDR |
ISO 13485 + ISO 42001 |
Cross-references: See ../quality-manager-qms-iso13485/SKILL.md for ISO 13485 implementation aligned with QMSR, and ../mdr-745-specialist/SKILL.md for EU MDR technical documentation requirements.
FDA Regulatory Updates & Cross-Framework Integration
FDA QMSR — Quality Management System Regulation
The FDA is aligning 21 CFR Part 820 with ISO 13485:2016 through the Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR), effective February 2, 2026:
- Key Change: QSR (21 CFR 820) replaced by ISO 13485 as the recognized quality system standard
- Impact: Manufacturers must comply with ISO 13485:2016 instead of QSR-specific requirements
- Design Controls: ISO 13485 Clause 7.3 replaces 820.30
- CAPA: ISO 13485 Clause 8.5 replaces 820.90/820.100
- Transition: FDA accepting both QSR and QMSR during transition period
AI/ML-Based Software as Medical Device (SaMD)
- Predetermined Change Control Plan (PCCP): Required for AI/ML devices that learn and adapt
- Good Machine Learning Practice (GMLP): FDA's 10 guiding principles for AI/ML in medical devices
- Transparency: Clear labeling of AI/ML-based functionality and limitations
- Real-World Performance: Post-market monitoring of AI model performance drift
- Cross-reference: See
eu-ai-act-specialist for EU AI Act requirements for AI medical devices
Enhanced Cybersecurity Requirements (PATCH Act)
- Premarket Submissions: Cybersecurity documentation required for all connected devices
- Software Bill of Materials (SBOM): Mandatory for all premarket submissions
- Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure: Required policy for all connected device manufacturers
- Postmarket Patches: Cybersecurity patches exempt from 510(k) requirements
- Cross-reference: See
infrastructure-compliance-auditor for technical cybersecurity checks
Cross-Framework Mapping (FDA ↔ MDR ↔ ISO 13485)
| Area |
FDA (QSR/QMSR) |
EU MDR 2017/745 |
ISO 13485:2016 |
| Design Controls |
820.30 / QMSR |
Annex II |
Clause 7.3 |
| Risk Management |
820.30(g) |
Annex I GSPR |
ISO 14971 |
| Clinical Evidence |
820.30(f) |
Annex XIV |
Clause 7.3.7 |
| CAPA |
820.90/100 |
Art. 83, 89 |
Clause 8.5 |
| Post-Market |
822, MDR |
Chapter VII |
Clause 8.2.1 |
| Cybersecurity |
FDA Guidance |
MDCG 2019-16 |
IEC 62443 |
| AI/ML |
PCCP Framework |
EU AI Act |
ISO 42001 |
Troubleshooting
| Problem |
Possible Cause |
Resolution |
| 510(k) submission returned as RTA (Refuse to Accept) |
Missing user fee, incomplete Form 3514, no predicate identified, or inadequate SE comparison |
Review the RTA checklist per FDA guidance; verify payment, complete all eSTAR fields, confirm K-number in FDA database, and address all technological characteristics in SE comparison |
| QSR compliance checker shows gaps in design controls (820.30) |
Design History File incomplete or not aligned with ISO 13485 Clause 7.3 under QMSR |
Map existing DHF to ISO 13485 Clause 7.3 structure; ensure design inputs, outputs, reviews, verification, and validation are documented with traceability |
| HIPAA risk assessment returns low score for technical safeguards |
Missing encryption at rest/transit, no MFA implementation, or audit logging not enabled |
Implement AES-256 encryption at rest, TLS 1.2+ in transit, MFA for all users with ePHI access, and comprehensive audit logging; run hipaa_risk_assessment.py with --category technical to validate |
| FDA AI request (Additional Information) received during 510(k) review |
Performance testing insufficient, SE argument incomplete, or software documentation gaps |
Respond within 180 days; address each question specifically; supplement with additional test data, clinical evidence, or software documentation per IEC 62304 |
| QMSR transition gap analysis reveals significant differences |
Organization structured QMS around legacy 21 CFR 820 rather than ISO 13485 |
Conduct systematic gap analysis mapping 820 subsections to ISO 13485 clauses; prioritize complaint handling (retained FDA requirement), risk-based evidence across all processes, and updated Quality Manual |
| Cybersecurity documentation rejected in premarket submission |
SBOM incomplete, threat model missing, or coordinated vulnerability disclosure policy not published |
Generate comprehensive SBOM in CycloneDX or SPDX format; complete STRIDE threat model per AAMI TIR57; publish CVD policy; document patch management lifecycle plan |
| AI/ML SaMD submission lacks Predetermined Change Control Plan |
Adaptive algorithm deployed without PCCP framework |
Develop PCCP covering modification types, validation protocol, impact assessment, performance monitoring, and user notification plan; include all four change categories with appropriate verification levels |
Success Criteria
- 510(k) submission accepted on first attempt -- zero RTA deficiencies, with all eSTAR sections complete, user fee verified, predicate identified, and SE comparison addressing all technological characteristics
- QSR/QMSR compliance score above 85% -- as measured by
qsr_compliance_checker.py, with all critical subsections (design controls, CAPA, document control) showing evidence of implementation
- HIPAA technical safeguards fully implemented -- AES-256 encryption at rest, TLS 1.2+ in transit, MFA enforced, audit controls active, and automatic logoff configured for all systems handling ePHI
- FDA submission timeline targets met -- 510(k) traditional within 90 days, De Novo within 150 days, PMA within 180 days, tracked via
fda_submission_tracker.py milestones
- QMSR transition completed -- Quality Manual references ISO 13485 clause structure, all SOPs mapped, FDA-specific retained requirements addressed, and internal audit conducted against QMSR requirements
- Cybersecurity documentation complete for all connected devices -- SBOM, threat model, security testing reports, vulnerability disclosure policy, and patch management plan included in premarket submissions
Scope & Limitations
In Scope:
- FDA regulatory pathway selection (510(k), De Novo, PMA) with decision framework and comparison
- 510(k) submission process including eSTAR requirements, SE comparison, and RTA prevention
- Quality System Regulation (21 CFR 820) and QMSR (ISO 13485:2016 alignment) compliance assessment
- HIPAA Security Rule safeguard evaluation for medical device software
- Device cybersecurity requirements including SBOM, threat modeling, and PATCH Act compliance
- AI/ML SaMD framework including PCCP, GMLP principles, and training data characterization
- Cross-framework mapping between FDA, EU MDR, and ISO 13485
Out of Scope:
- Preparation or writing of actual FDA submission documents -- this skill provides frameworks and gap analysis, not document authoring
- Clinical trial design, execution, or statistical analysis for PMA clinical data
- FDA establishment registration, device listing, or UDI system implementation
- Post-market surveillance reporting (MDR, MedWatch) beyond process guidance
- De novo classification request scientific review preparation
- Direct interaction with FDA reviewers or Pre-Submission (Q-Sub) meeting facilitation
Important Notes:
- The QMSR became effective February 2, 2026 -- all manufacturers must now comply with ISO 13485:2016 as incorporated by reference, with FDA-specific retained requirements
- The Quality System Inspection Technique (QSIT) has been withdrawn and replaced with updated inspection procedures under Compliance Program 7382.850
- Risk-based thinking is now expected across all QMS processes under QMSR, not just design controls
Integration Points
| Skill |
Integration |
When to Use |
quality-manager-qms-iso13485 |
ISO 13485 QMS implementation aligned with QMSR; process management and supplier qualification |
When implementing QMS satisfying both ISO 13485 certification and FDA QMSR requirements |
mdr-745-specialist |
Cross-framework mapping for dual US/EU market submissions; technical documentation alignment |
When medical device requires both FDA clearance/approval and EU MDR CE marking |
capa-officer |
CAPA process management per ISO 13485 Clause 8.5 (replacing legacy 820.100 under QMSR) |
When managing corrective and preventive actions within the FDA quality system |
risk-management-specialist |
ISO 14971 risk management integrated with design controls and cybersecurity risk assessment |
When conducting risk analysis for premarket submissions per 820.30(g) and AAMI TIR57 |
eu-ai-act-specialist |
Cross-jurisdictional AI/ML compliance for devices marketed in both US and EU |
When AI-enabled medical device requires both FDA PCCP framework and EU AI Act conformity assessment |
infrastructure-compliance-auditor |
Technical cybersecurity validation for connected device security controls |
When documenting cybersecurity architecture and SBOM for premarket submissions |
Tool Reference
fda_submission_tracker.py
Tracks FDA submission milestones and calculates regulatory timelines for 510(k), De Novo, and PMA pathways.
| Flag |
Required |
Description |
<project_dir> |
Yes |
Path to project directory containing submission documents |
--type <pathway> |
No |
Submission type: 510k (default), de_novo, pma, pma_supplement |
--json |
No |
Output results in JSON format |
Output: Milestone tracking with completion status, timeline calculations against FDA review goals, phase progress (planning, preparation, submission, review, decision), and overdue milestone alerts.
qsr_compliance_checker.py
Assesses compliance with 21 CFR Part 820 / QMSR by analyzing project documentation for evidence of implementation.
| Flag |
Required |
Description |
<project_dir> |
Yes |
Path to project directory containing QMS documentation |
--section <section> |
No |
Check specific QSR section (e.g., 820.30 for design controls, 820.100 for CAPA) |
--json |
No |
Output results in JSON format |
Output: Per-section compliance status, evidence found (document patterns and keyword matches), compliance percentage, gap identification with required evidence descriptions.
hipaa_risk_assessment.py
Evaluates HIPAA Security Rule safeguards for medical device software and connected devices.
| Flag |
Required |
Description |
<project_dir> |
Yes |
Path to project directory for assessment |
--category <cat> |
No |
Assess specific category: administrative, physical, technical, or all (default) |
--json |
No |
Output results in JSON format |
Output: Per-safeguard compliance status across administrative (Section 164.308), physical (Section 164.310), and technical (Section 164.312) categories, with weighted scoring, evidence detection, and remediation recommendations.
1---2name: fda-consultant-specialist3description: FDA regulatory consultant for medical device companies, covering 510(k)/PMA/De Novo pathways, QSR (21 CFR 820), HIPAA, and device cybersecurity. Use for FDA submissions, predicate and substantial-equivalence analysis, and premarket strategy.4license: MIT + Commons Clause5---6# FDA Consultant Specialist
7
8FDA regulatory consulting for medical device manufacturers covering submission pathways, Quality System Regulation (QSR), HIPAA compliance, and device cybersecurity requirements.
9
10## Table of Contents
11
12- [FDA Pathway Selection](#fda-pathway-selection)
13- [510(k) Submission Process](#510k-submission-process)
14- [QSR Compliance](#qsr-compliance)
15- [HIPAA for Medical Devices](#hipaa-for-medical-devices)
16- [Device Cybersecurity](#device-cybersecurity)
17- [Resources](#resources)
18
19---
20
21## Clarify First
22
23Before selecting a pathway or assessing compliance, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:
24
25- [ ] **Device class and predicate** — Class I/II/III and whether a predicate device exists (drives 510(k) vs De Novo vs PMA)
26- [ ] **Intended use / indications** — what the device claims and its use environment (sets the substantial-equivalence argument and clinical-evidence needs)
27- [ ] **Software/AI nature** — SaMD, adaptive AI needing a PCCP, or connected device (cybersecurity/SBOM) (changes the required documentation set)
28
29Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the analysis.
30
31## FDA Pathway Selection
32
33Determine the appropriate FDA regulatory pathway based on device classification and predicate availability.
34
35### Decision Framework
36
37```
38Predicate device exists?
39├── YES → Substantially equivalent?
40│ ├── YES → 510(k) Pathway
41│ │ ├── No design changes → Abbreviated 510(k)
42│ │ ├── Manufacturing only → Special 510(k)
43│ │ └── Design/performance → Traditional 510(k)
44│ └── NO → PMA or De Novo
45└── NO → Novel device?
46 ├── Low-to-moderate risk → De Novo
47 └── High risk (Class III) → PMA
48```
49
50### Pathway Comparison
51
52| Pathway | When to Use | Timeline | Cost |
53|---------|-------------|----------|------|
54| 510(k) Traditional | Predicate exists, design changes | 90 days | $21,760 |
55| 510(k) Special | Manufacturing changes only | 30 days | $21,760 |
56| 510(k) Abbreviated | Guidance/standard conformance | 30 days | $21,760 |
57| De Novo | Novel, low-moderate risk | 150 days | $134,676 |
58| PMA | Class III, no predicate | 180+ days | $425,000+ |
59
60### Pre-Submission Strategy
61
621. Identify product code and classification
632. Search 510(k) database for predicates
643. Assess substantial equivalence feasibility
654. Prepare Q-Sub questions for FDA
665. Schedule Pre-Sub meeting if needed
67
68**Reference:** See [fda_submission_guide.md](references/fda_submission_guide.md) for pathway decision matrices and submission requirements.
69
70---
71
72## 510(k) Submission Process
73
74### Workflow
75
76```
77Phase 1: Planning
78├── Step 1: Identify predicate device(s)
79├── Step 2: Compare intended use and technology
80├── Step 3: Determine testing requirements
81└── Checkpoint: SE argument feasible?
82
83Phase 2: Preparation
84├── Step 4: Complete performance testing
85├── Step 5: Prepare device description
86├── Step 6: Document SE comparison
87├── Step 7: Finalize labeling
88└── Checkpoint: All required sections complete?
89
90Phase 3: Submission
91├── Step 8: Assemble submission package
92├── Step 9: Submit via eSTAR
93├── Step 10: Track acknowledgment
94└── Checkpoint: Submission accepted?
95
96Phase 4: Review
97├── Step 11: Monitor review status
98├── Step 12: Respond to AI requests
99├── Step 13: Receive decision
100└── Verification: SE letter received?
101```
102
103### Required Sections (21 CFR 807.87)
104
105| Section | Content |
106|---------|---------|
107| Cover Letter | Submission type, device ID, contact info |
108| Form 3514 | CDRH premarket review cover sheet |
109| Device Description | Physical description, principles of operation |
110| Indications for Use | Form 3881, patient population, use environment |
111| SE Comparison | Side-by-side comparison with predicate |
112| Performance Testing | Bench, biocompatibility, electrical safety |
113| Software Documentation | Level of concern, hazard analysis (IEC 62304) |
114| Labeling | IFU, package labels, warnings |
115| 510(k) Summary | Public summary of submission |
116
117### Common RTA Issues
118
119| Issue | Prevention |
120|-------|------------|
121| Missing user fee | Verify payment before submission |
122| Incomplete Form 3514 | Review all fields, ensure signature |
123| No predicate identified | Confirm K-number in FDA database |
124| Inadequate SE comparison | Address all technological characteristics |
125
126---
127
128## QSR Compliance
129
130Quality System Regulation (21 CFR Part 820) requirements for medical device manufacturers.
131
132### Key Subsystems
133
134| Section | Title | Focus |
135|---------|-------|-------|
136| 820.20 | Management Responsibility | Quality policy, org structure, management review |
137| 820.30 | Design Controls | Input, output, review, verification, validation |
138| 820.40 | Document Controls | Approval, distribution, change control |
139| 820.50 | Purchasing Controls | Supplier qualification, purchasing data |
140| 820.70 | Production Controls | Process validation, environmental controls |
141| 820.100 | CAPA | Root cause analysis, corrective actions |
142| 820.181 | Device Master Record | Specifications, procedures, acceptance criteria |
143
144### Design Controls Workflow (820.30)
145
146```
147Step 1: Design Input
148└── Capture user needs, intended use, regulatory requirements
149 Verification: Inputs reviewed and approved?
150
151Step 2: Design Output
152└── Create specifications, drawings, software architecture
153 Verification: Outputs traceable to inputs?
154
155Step 3: Design Review
156└── Conduct reviews at each phase milestone
157 Verification: Review records with signatures?
158
159Step 4: Design Verification
160└── Perform testing against specifications
161 Verification: All tests pass acceptance criteria?
162
163Step 5: Design Validation
164└── Confirm device meets user needs in actual use conditions
165 Verification: Validation report approved?
166
167Step 6: Design Transfer
168└── Release to production with DMR complete
169 Verification: Transfer checklist complete?
170```
171
172### CAPA Process (820.100)
173
1741. **Identify**: Document nonconformity or potential problem
1752. **Investigate**: Perform root cause analysis (5 Whys, Fishbone)
1763. **Plan**: Define corrective/preventive actions
1774. **Implement**: Execute actions, update documentation
1785. **Verify**: Confirm implementation complete
1796. **Effectiveness**: Monitor for recurrence (30-90 days)
1807. **Close**: Management approval and closure
181
182**Reference:** See [qsr_compliance_requirements.md](references/qsr_compliance_requirements.md) for detailed QSR implementation guidance.
183
184---
185
186## HIPAA for Medical Devices
187
188HIPAA requirements for devices that create, store, transmit, or access Protected Health Information (PHI).
189
190### Applicability
191
192| Device Type | HIPAA Applies |
193|-------------|---------------|
194| Standalone diagnostic (no data transmission) | No |
195| Connected device transmitting patient data | Yes |
196| Device with EHR integration | Yes |
197| SaMD storing patient information | Yes |
198| Wellness app (no diagnosis) | Only if stores PHI |
199
200### Required Safeguards
201
202```
203Administrative (§164.308)
204├── Security officer designation
205├── Risk analysis and management
206├── Workforce training
207├── Incident response procedures
208└── Business associate agreements
209
210Physical (§164.310)
211├── Facility access controls
212├── Workstation security
213└── Device disposal procedures
214
215Technical (§164.312)
216├── Access control (unique IDs, auto-logoff)
217├── Audit controls (logging)
218├── Integrity controls (checksums, hashes)
219├── Authentication (MFA recommended)
220└── Transmission security (TLS 1.2+)
221```
222
223### Risk Assessment Steps
224
2251. Inventory all systems handling ePHI
2262. Document data flows (collection, storage, transmission)
2273. Identify threats and vulnerabilities
2284. Assess likelihood and impact
2295. Determine risk levels
2306. Implement controls
2317. Document residual risk
232
233**Reference:** See [hipaa_compliance_framework.md](references/hipaa_compliance_framework.md) for implementation checklists and BAA templates.
234
235---
236
237## Device Cybersecurity
238
239FDA cybersecurity requirements for connected medical devices.
240
241### Premarket Requirements
242
243| Element | Description |
244|---------|-------------|
245| Threat Model | STRIDE analysis, attack trees, trust boundaries |
246| Security Controls | Authentication, encryption, access control |
247| SBOM | Software Bill of Materials (CycloneDX or SPDX) |
248| Security Testing | Penetration testing, vulnerability scanning |
249| Vulnerability Plan | Disclosure process, patch management |
250
251### Device Tier Classification
252
253**Tier 1 (Higher Risk):**
254- Connects to network/internet
255- Cybersecurity incident could cause patient harm
256
257**Tier 2 (Standard Risk):**
258- All other connected devices
259
260### Postmarket Obligations
261
2621. Monitor NVD and ICS-CERT for vulnerabilities
2632. Assess applicability to device components
2643. Develop and test patches
2654. Communicate with customers
2665. Report to FDA per guidance
267
268### Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure
269
270```
271Researcher Report
272 ↓
273Acknowledgment (48 hours)
274 ↓
275Initial Assessment (5 days)
276 ↓
277Fix Development
278 ↓
279Coordinated Public Disclosure
280```
281
282**Reference:** See [device_cybersecurity_guidance.md](references/device_cybersecurity_guidance.md) for SBOM format examples and threat modeling templates.
283
284---
285
286## Resources
287
288### scripts/
289
290| Script | Purpose |
291|--------|---------|
292| `fda_submission_tracker.py` | Track 510(k)/PMA/De Novo submission milestones and timelines |
293| `qsr_compliance_checker.py` | Assess 21 CFR 820 compliance against project documentation |
294| `hipaa_risk_assessment.py` | Evaluate HIPAA safeguards in medical device software |
295
296### references/
297
298| File | Content |
299|------|---------|
300| `fda_submission_guide.md` | 510(k), De Novo, PMA submission requirements and checklists |
301| `qsr_compliance_requirements.md` | 21 CFR 820 implementation guide with templates |
302| `hipaa_compliance_framework.md` | HIPAA Security Rule safeguards and BAA requirements |
303| `device_cybersecurity_guidance.md` | FDA cybersecurity requirements, SBOM, threat modeling |
304| `fda_capa_requirements.md` | CAPA process, root cause analysis, effectiveness verification |
305
306### Usage Examples
307
308```bash
309# Track FDA submission status
310python scripts/fda_submission_tracker.py /path/to/project --type 510k
311
312# Assess QSR compliance
313python scripts/qsr_compliance_checker.py /path/to/project --section 820.30
314
315# Run HIPAA risk assessment
316python scripts/hipaa_risk_assessment.py /path/to/project --category technical
317```
318
319---
320
321## FDA QMSR — Quality Management System Regulation
322
323### Transition from QSR (21 CFR 820) to QMSR
324
325The FDA finalized the Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR) in January 2024, replacing the legacy Quality System Regulation (QSR) with ISO 13485:2016 alignment. The rule became effective **February 2, 2026**.
326
327| Aspect | Legacy QSR (21 CFR 820) | QMSR (Effective Feb 2026) |
328|--------|------------------------|---------------------------|
329| Framework | FDA-specific prescriptive requirements | Incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference |
330| Design controls | 820.30 (FDA-specific) | ISO 13485 Clause 7.3 |
331| CAPA | 820.100 | ISO 13485 Clause 8.5 |
332| Document control | 820.40 | ISO 13485 Clause 4.2 |
333| Management responsibility | 820.20 | ISO 13485 Clause 5 |
334| Purchasing controls | 820.50 | ISO 13485 Clause 7.4 |
335
336**Key differences under QMSR:**
337- ISO 13485:2016 is incorporated by reference as the primary QMS standard
338- FDA retains certain device-specific requirements not covered by ISO 13485 (e.g., complaint handling per 21 CFR 820.198)
339- Organizations already ISO 13485 certified have a significant head start
340- No separate FDA registration for QMS — single system serves both ISO and FDA
341
342### QMSR Transition Checklist
343
344- [ ] Gap analysis: ISO 13485:2016 vs. current QSR compliance
345- [ ] Update Quality Manual to reference ISO 13485 clause structure
346- [ ] Map existing SOPs to ISO 13485 clauses
347- [ ] Address FDA-specific retained requirements (complaint handling, MDR reporting)
348- [ ] Train staff on ISO 13485 terminology and structure
349- [ ] Update supplier agreements to reference new regulatory framework
350- [ ] Conduct internal audit against QMSR requirements
351- [ ] Update design history files to ISO 13485 Clause 7.3 format
352
353---
354
355## AI/ML-Based Software as Medical Device (SaMD)
356
357### FDA AI/ML SaMD Framework
358
359| Category | Description | FDA Pathway |
360|----------|-------------|-------------|
361| Locked algorithm | Algorithm does not change after deployment | Standard 510(k)/De Novo/PMA |
362| Adaptive algorithm (PCCP) | Algorithm learns and changes with use | Predetermined Change Control Plan |
363| Continuously learning | Real-time adaptation from new data | Case-by-case; PCCP required |
364
365### AI/ML SaMD Submission Requirements
366
367```
368AI/ML SaMD Submission Package
369├── Algorithm description and architecture
370├── Training data characterization
371│ ├── Data sources and collection methods
372│ ├── Demographics and representativeness
373│ ├── Data quality and labeling methodology
374│ └── Training/validation/test split rationale
375├── Performance evaluation
376│ ├── Pre-specified performance goals
377│ ├── Standalone performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, AUC)
378│ ├── Subgroup analysis (age, sex, race, site)
379│ └── Real-world performance data (if available)
380├── Reference standard justification
381├── Predetermined Change Control Plan (if adaptive)
382├── Human factors / user interface
383├── Cybersecurity documentation
384└── Software documentation per IEC 62304
385```
386
387### Good Machine Learning Practice (GMLP) Principles
388
3891. Multi-disciplinary expertise throughout product lifecycle
3902. Good software engineering and security practices
3913. Representative training and test datasets
3924. Independent test datasets separate from training
3935. Reference datasets based on best available methods
3946. Model design tailored to available data and intended use
3957. Focus on performance of human-AI team
3968. Clinical study testing demonstrates real-world performance
3979. Users provided clear, essential information
39810. Deployed models monitored for performance with retraining managed
399
400---
401
402## Predetermined Change Control Plan (PCCP) for AI/ML Devices
403
404### PCCP Structure
405
406| Section | Content | Evidence |
407|---------|---------|----------|
408| Description of modifications | Types of changes the algorithm will make | Change specification document |
409| Modification protocol | How changes will be developed and tested | Validation protocol |
410| Impact assessment | How each change type affects safety and effectiveness | Risk analysis per change type |
411| Performance monitoring | Ongoing real-world performance tracking | Monitoring plan with metrics |
412| Update verification | How each update will be verified before deployment | Verification and validation plan |
413| Transparency | How users will be notified of changes | Communication plan |
414
415### PCCP Change Categories
416
417| Category | Example | Verification Level |
418|----------|---------|-------------------|
419| Performance improvement | Retrained model with additional data | Automated testing + clinical validation |
420| Input adaptation | New imaging modality support | Full V&V cycle |
421| Output modification | New risk categories or confidence levels | Clinical study |
422| Architecture change | Model architecture update | New submission (510(k)/PMA supplement) |
423
424---
425
426## Enhanced Cybersecurity Requirements (PATCH Act)
427
428The PATCH Act (effective March 2023, codified in FD&C Act §524B) requires:
429
430| Requirement | Details | Evidence |
431|-------------|---------|----------|
432| Cybersecurity plan | Submit plan to monitor, identify, and address vulnerabilities | Premarket submission section |
433| SBOM | Software Bill of Materials including commercial, open-source, off-the-shelf components | CycloneDX or SPDX format |
434| Patch/update capability | Design device to be patchable throughout lifecycle | Architecture documentation |
435| Coordinated vulnerability disclosure | Establish and maintain CVD process | Published security policy |
436| Postmarket updates | Provide patches and updates in a reasonably justified cycle | Patch management plan |
437
438### Cybersecurity Documentation for Premarket Submissions
439
440```
441Cybersecurity Premarket Package
442├── Security risk assessment
443│ ├── Threat model (STRIDE or equivalent)
444│ ├── Security risk analysis per AAMI TIR57
445│ └── Attack surface analysis
446├── Security architecture
447│ ├── Security controls implementation
448│ ├── Cryptographic architecture
449│ └── Network architecture and trust boundaries
450├── SBOM (Software Bill of Materials)
451│ ├── All software components (commercial, open-source, custom)
452│ ├── Version information
453│ └── Known vulnerability status
454├── Security testing
455│ ├── Static analysis (SAST)
456│ ├── Dynamic analysis (DAST)
457│ ├── Penetration testing report
458│ ├── Fuzz testing results
459│ └── Vulnerability scanning results
460├── Lifecycle security plan
461│ ├── Patch management process
462│ ├── End-of-life/end-of-support plan
463│ └── Customer communication plan
464└── Coordinated vulnerability disclosure policy
465```
466
467---
468
469## Cross-Reference: EU AI Act for AI Medical Devices
470
471AI-enabled medical devices must comply with both FDA requirements and EU AI Act when marketed in both jurisdictions:
472
473| Aspect | FDA Approach | EU AI Act Approach | Harmonization Strategy |
474|--------|-------------|-------------------|----------------------|
475| Risk classification | SaMD risk framework (IMDRF) | Annex III high-risk (medical devices) | Map to both frameworks; use higher standard |
476| Transparency | Labeling requirements | Art. 13 transparency obligations | Unified transparency documentation |
477| Data governance | GMLP principles | Art. 10 data and data governance | Comprehensive data quality program |
478| Human oversight | Human factors per IEC 62366 | Art. 14 human oversight | Integrated human factors + oversight design |
479| Post-market | Real-world performance monitoring | Art. 72 post-market monitoring | Single monitoring system serving both |
480| Technical documentation | FDA premarket submission | Annex IV technical documentation | Unified technical file |
481
482> **See also:** `../mdr-745-specialist/SKILL.md` for EU MDR classification of AI/ML medical devices and `../risk-management-specialist/SKILL.md` for ISO 14971 risk management for AI devices.
483
484---
485
486## Updated 510(k) Electronic Submission Requirements (eSTAR)
487
488### eSTAR Mandate
489
490As of October 1, 2023, FDA requires all 510(k) submissions to use the eSTAR template format. Paper submissions are no longer accepted.
491
492| eSTAR Requirement | Details |
493|-------------------|---------|
494| Template | FDA eSTAR template (fillable PDF) |
495| Format | Structured data fields + attachments |
496| Attachments | PDF/A format, bookmarked, OCR-searchable |
497| File naming | FDA naming convention required |
498| Submission portal | CDRH Customer Collaboration Portal or FDA ESG |
499| Maximum file size | 100MB per individual file; no total limit |
500
501### eSTAR Section Mapping
502
503| eSTAR Section | Content | Common Deficiencies |
504|---------------|---------|---------------------|
505| Administrative | Cover letter, user fee, truthful/accurate statement | Missing signatures, incorrect fee |
506| Device Description | Complete device description with images/diagrams | Insufficient detail, missing accessories |
507| Substantial Equivalence | Predicate comparison table | Incomplete comparison criteria |
508| Performance Testing | All test reports with summaries | Missing acceptance criteria, incomplete protocols |
509| Software | Level of concern, hazard analysis, architecture | Outdated IEC 62304 compliance |
510| Biocompatibility | ISO 10993 evaluation or testing | Missing risk assessment, incomplete contact analysis |
511| Sterility | Sterilization validation summary | Missing reprocessing instructions (reusable devices) |
512| Labeling | Device labels, IFU, patient materials | Non-compliant with 21 CFR 801 |
513| EMC/Electrical Safety | IEC 60601-1 compliance | Missing particular standards |
514| Clinical | Clinical data summary (if applicable) | Insufficient clinical evidence for new indications |
515
516---
517
518## Cross-Framework: FDA ↔ MDR ↔ ISO 13485 Mapping
519
520| Process Area | FDA (QMSR/QSR) | EU MDR 2017/745 | ISO 13485:2016 |
521|-------------|-----------------|-----------------|----------------|
522| Quality management system | 21 CFR 820 / QMSR | Annex IX, Annex XI | Clause 4 |
523| Management responsibility | 820.20 / ISO 13485 Cl. 5 | Annex IX §2.2 | Clause 5 |
524| Design controls | 820.30 / ISO 13485 Cl. 7.3 | Annex II §6.1, GSPR | Clause 7.3 |
525| Document control | 820.40 / ISO 13485 Cl. 4.2 | Annex IX §2.3 | Clause 4.2 |
526| Purchasing | 820.50 / ISO 13485 Cl. 7.4 | Annex IX §2.4 | Clause 7.4 |
527| Production | 820.70 / ISO 13485 Cl. 7.5 | Annex IX §2.5 | Clause 7.5 |
528| CAPA | 820.100 / ISO 13485 Cl. 8.5 | Art. 83 (PMS), Art. 89 (FSCA) | Clause 8.5 |
529| Risk management | 820.30(g) / ISO 14971 | Annex I (GSPR), ISO 14971 | Clause 7.1 |
530| Clinical evidence | 820.30(f) / clinical data | Annex XIV (clinical evaluation) | N/A (separate) |
531| Post-market | 820.198 / MDR/MedWatch | Art. 83-86 (PMS), Art. 87-92 (vigilance) | Clause 8.2.1-8.2.3 |
532| Labeling | 21 CFR 801 | Art. 10-13, Annex I Ch. III | N/A (separate) |
533| UDI | 21 CFR 830 (FDA UDI) | Art. 27-29 (UDI-DI/PI) | N/A (separate) |
534| Cybersecurity | §524B FD&C (PATCH Act) | MDCG 2019-16 | N/A (separate) |
535| AI/ML devices | AI/ML SaMD framework + PCCP | EU AI Act + MDR | ISO 13485 + ISO 42001 |
536
537> **Cross-references:** See `../quality-manager-qms-iso13485/SKILL.md` for ISO 13485 implementation aligned with QMSR, and `../mdr-745-specialist/SKILL.md` for EU MDR technical documentation requirements.
538
539---
540
541## FDA Regulatory Updates & Cross-Framework Integration
542
543### FDA QMSR — Quality Management System Regulation
544
545The FDA is aligning 21 CFR Part 820 with ISO 13485:2016 through the Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR), effective February 2, 2026:
546
547- **Key Change:** QSR (21 CFR 820) replaced by ISO 13485 as the recognized quality system standard
548- **Impact:** Manufacturers must comply with ISO 13485:2016 instead of QSR-specific requirements
549- **Design Controls:** ISO 13485 Clause 7.3 replaces 820.30
550- **CAPA:** ISO 13485 Clause 8.5 replaces 820.90/820.100
551- **Transition:** FDA accepting both QSR and QMSR during transition period
552
553### AI/ML-Based Software as Medical Device (SaMD)
554
555- **Predetermined Change Control Plan (PCCP):** Required for AI/ML devices that learn and adapt
556- **Good Machine Learning Practice (GMLP):** FDA's 10 guiding principles for AI/ML in medical devices
557- **Transparency:** Clear labeling of AI/ML-based functionality and limitations
558- **Real-World Performance:** Post-market monitoring of AI model performance drift
559- **Cross-reference:** See `eu-ai-act-specialist` for EU AI Act requirements for AI medical devices
560
561### Enhanced Cybersecurity Requirements (PATCH Act)
562
563- **Premarket Submissions:** Cybersecurity documentation required for all connected devices
564- **Software Bill of Materials (SBOM):** Mandatory for all premarket submissions
565- **Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure:** Required policy for all connected device manufacturers
566- **Postmarket Patches:** Cybersecurity patches exempt from 510(k) requirements
567- **Cross-reference:** See `infrastructure-compliance-auditor` for technical cybersecurity checks
568
569### Cross-Framework Mapping (FDA ↔ MDR ↔ ISO 13485)
570
571| Area | FDA (QSR/QMSR) | EU MDR 2017/745 | ISO 13485:2016 |
572|------|----------------|-----------------|----------------|
573| Design Controls | 820.30 / QMSR | Annex II | Clause 7.3 |
574| Risk Management | 820.30(g) | Annex I GSPR | ISO 14971 |
575| Clinical Evidence | 820.30(f) | Annex XIV | Clause 7.3.7 |
576| CAPA | 820.90/100 | Art. 83, 89 | Clause 8.5 |
577| Post-Market | 822, MDR | Chapter VII | Clause 8.2.1 |
578| Cybersecurity | FDA Guidance | MDCG 2019-16 | IEC 62443 |
579| AI/ML | PCCP Framework | EU AI Act | ISO 42001 |
580
581---
582
583## Troubleshooting
584
585| Problem | Possible Cause | Resolution |
586|---------|---------------|------------|
587| 510(k) submission returned as RTA (Refuse to Accept) | Missing user fee, incomplete Form 3514, no predicate identified, or inadequate SE comparison | Review the RTA checklist per FDA guidance; verify payment, complete all eSTAR fields, confirm K-number in FDA database, and address all technological characteristics in SE comparison |
588| QSR compliance checker shows gaps in design controls (820.30) | Design History File incomplete or not aligned with ISO 13485 Clause 7.3 under QMSR | Map existing DHF to ISO 13485 Clause 7.3 structure; ensure design inputs, outputs, reviews, verification, and validation are documented with traceability |
589| HIPAA risk assessment returns low score for technical safeguards | Missing encryption at rest/transit, no MFA implementation, or audit logging not enabled | Implement AES-256 encryption at rest, TLS 1.2+ in transit, MFA for all users with ePHI access, and comprehensive audit logging; run `hipaa_risk_assessment.py` with `--category technical` to validate |
590| FDA AI request (Additional Information) received during 510(k) review | Performance testing insufficient, SE argument incomplete, or software documentation gaps | Respond within 180 days; address each question specifically; supplement with additional test data, clinical evidence, or software documentation per IEC 62304 |
591| QMSR transition gap analysis reveals significant differences | Organization structured QMS around legacy 21 CFR 820 rather than ISO 13485 | Conduct systematic gap analysis mapping 820 subsections to ISO 13485 clauses; prioritize complaint handling (retained FDA requirement), risk-based evidence across all processes, and updated Quality Manual |
592| Cybersecurity documentation rejected in premarket submission | SBOM incomplete, threat model missing, or coordinated vulnerability disclosure policy not published | Generate comprehensive SBOM in CycloneDX or SPDX format; complete STRIDE threat model per AAMI TIR57; publish CVD policy; document patch management lifecycle plan |
593| AI/ML SaMD submission lacks Predetermined Change Control Plan | Adaptive algorithm deployed without PCCP framework | Develop PCCP covering modification types, validation protocol, impact assessment, performance monitoring, and user notification plan; include all four change categories with appropriate verification levels |
594
595---
596
597## Success Criteria
598
599- **510(k) submission accepted on first attempt** -- zero RTA deficiencies, with all eSTAR sections complete, user fee verified, predicate identified, and SE comparison addressing all technological characteristics
600- **QSR/QMSR compliance score above 85%** -- as measured by `qsr_compliance_checker.py`, with all critical subsections (design controls, CAPA, document control) showing evidence of implementation
601- **HIPAA technical safeguards fully implemented** -- AES-256 encryption at rest, TLS 1.2+ in transit, MFA enforced, audit controls active, and automatic logoff configured for all systems handling ePHI
602- **FDA submission timeline targets met** -- 510(k) traditional within 90 days, De Novo within 150 days, PMA within 180 days, tracked via `fda_submission_tracker.py` milestones
603- **QMSR transition completed** -- Quality Manual references ISO 13485 clause structure, all SOPs mapped, FDA-specific retained requirements addressed, and internal audit conducted against QMSR requirements
604- **Cybersecurity documentation complete for all connected devices** -- SBOM, threat model, security testing reports, vulnerability disclosure policy, and patch management plan included in premarket submissions
605
606---
607
608## Scope & Limitations
609
610**In Scope:**
611- FDA regulatory pathway selection (510(k), De Novo, PMA) with decision framework and comparison
612- 510(k) submission process including eSTAR requirements, SE comparison, and RTA prevention
613- Quality System Regulation (21 CFR 820) and QMSR (ISO 13485:2016 alignment) compliance assessment
614- HIPAA Security Rule safeguard evaluation for medical device software
615- Device cybersecurity requirements including SBOM, threat modeling, and PATCH Act compliance
616- AI/ML SaMD framework including PCCP, GMLP principles, and training data characterization
617- Cross-framework mapping between FDA, EU MDR, and ISO 13485
618
619**Out of Scope:**
620- Preparation or writing of actual FDA submission documents -- this skill provides frameworks and gap analysis, not document authoring
621- Clinical trial design, execution, or statistical analysis for PMA clinical data
622- FDA establishment registration, device listing, or UDI system implementation
623- Post-market surveillance reporting (MDR, MedWatch) beyond process guidance
624- De novo classification request scientific review preparation
625- Direct interaction with FDA reviewers or Pre-Submission (Q-Sub) meeting facilitation
626
627**Important Notes:**
628- The QMSR became effective February 2, 2026 -- all manufacturers must now comply with ISO 13485:2016 as incorporated by reference, with FDA-specific retained requirements
629- The Quality System Inspection Technique (QSIT) has been withdrawn and replaced with updated inspection procedures under Compliance Program 7382.850
630- Risk-based thinking is now expected across all QMS processes under QMSR, not just design controls
631
632---
633
634## Integration Points
635
636| Skill | Integration | When to Use |
637|-------|-------------|-------------|
638| `quality-manager-qms-iso13485` | ISO 13485 QMS implementation aligned with QMSR; process management and supplier qualification | When implementing QMS satisfying both ISO 13485 certification and FDA QMSR requirements |
639| `mdr-745-specialist` | Cross-framework mapping for dual US/EU market submissions; technical documentation alignment | When medical device requires both FDA clearance/approval and EU MDR CE marking |
640| `capa-officer` | CAPA process management per ISO 13485 Clause 8.5 (replacing legacy 820.100 under QMSR) | When managing corrective and preventive actions within the FDA quality system |
641| `risk-management-specialist` | ISO 14971 risk management integrated with design controls and cybersecurity risk assessment | When conducting risk analysis for premarket submissions per 820.30(g) and AAMI TIR57 |
642| `eu-ai-act-specialist` | Cross-jurisdictional AI/ML compliance for devices marketed in both US and EU | When AI-enabled medical device requires both FDA PCCP framework and EU AI Act conformity assessment |
643| `infrastructure-compliance-auditor` | Technical cybersecurity validation for connected device security controls | When documenting cybersecurity architecture and SBOM for premarket submissions |
644
645---
646
647## Tool Reference
648
649### fda_submission_tracker.py
650
651Tracks FDA submission milestones and calculates regulatory timelines for 510(k), De Novo, and PMA pathways.
652
653| Flag | Required | Description |
654|------|----------|-------------|
655| `<project_dir>` | Yes | Path to project directory containing submission documents |
656| `--type <pathway>` | No | Submission type: `510k` (default), `de_novo`, `pma`, `pma_supplement` |
657| `--json` | No | Output results in JSON format |
658
659**Output:** Milestone tracking with completion status, timeline calculations against FDA review goals, phase progress (planning, preparation, submission, review, decision), and overdue milestone alerts.
660
661### qsr_compliance_checker.py
662
663Assesses compliance with 21 CFR Part 820 / QMSR by analyzing project documentation for evidence of implementation.
664
665| Flag | Required | Description |
666|------|----------|-------------|
667| `<project_dir>` | Yes | Path to project directory containing QMS documentation |
668| `--section <section>` | No | Check specific QSR section (e.g., `820.30` for design controls, `820.100` for CAPA) |
669| `--json` | No | Output results in JSON format |
670
671**Output:** Per-section compliance status, evidence found (document patterns and keyword matches), compliance percentage, gap identification with required evidence descriptions.
672
673### hipaa_risk_assessment.py
674
675Evaluates HIPAA Security Rule safeguards for medical device software and connected devices.
676
677| Flag | Required | Description |
678|------|----------|-------------|
679| `<project_dir>` | Yes | Path to project directory for assessment |
680| `--category <cat>` | No | Assess specific category: `administrative`, `physical`, `technical`, or all (default) |
681| `--json` | No | Output results in JSON format |
682
683**Output:** Per-safeguard compliance status across administrative (Section 164.308), physical (Section 164.310), and technical (Section 164.312) categories, with weighted scoring, evidence detection, and remediation recommendations.