Risk Management Specialist
ISO 14971:2019 risk management implementation throughout the medical device lifecycle.
Use boundary: The bundled matrix and RPN thresholds are illustrative
defaults, not values mandated by ISO 14971. A qualified risk owner must define
and approve device-specific acceptability criteria, verify control
effectiveness, and approve regulated records. The skill supports analysis and
drafting; it does not certify compliance or replace clinical, engineering, or
regulatory judgment.
Table of Contents
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:
- Illustrative 5x5 risk matrix calculation for an ISO 14971 workflow
- FMEA RPN (Risk Priority Number) calculation
- Interactive mode for guided assessment
- Display risk criteria definitions
- JSON output for integration
Before use in a regulated file, replace or formally approve the example matrix,
probability bands, severity definitions, and RPN action thresholds.
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
1---2name: risk-management-specialist3description: 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.4---56# Risk Management Specialist78ISO 14971:2019 risk management implementation throughout the medical device lifecycle.910> **Use boundary:** The bundled matrix and RPN thresholds are illustrative11> defaults, not values mandated by ISO 14971. A qualified risk owner must define12> and approve device-specific acceptability criteria, verify control13> effectiveness, and approve regulated records. The skill supports analysis and14> drafting; it does not certify compliance or replace clinical, engineering, or15> regulatory judgment.1617---1819## Table of Contents2021- [Risk Management Planning Workflow](#risk-management-planning-workflow)22- [Risk Analysis Workflow](#risk-analysis-workflow)23- [Risk Evaluation Workflow](#risk-evaluation-workflow)24- [Risk Control Workflow](#risk-control-workflow)25- [Post-Production Risk Management](#post-production-risk-management)26- [Risk Assessment Templates](#risk-assessment-templates)27- [Decision Frameworks](#decision-frameworks)28- [Tools and References](#tools-and-references)2930---3132## Risk Management Planning Workflow3334Establish risk management process per ISO 14971.3536### Workflow: Create Risk Management Plan37381. Define scope of risk management activities:39 - Medical device identification40 - Lifecycle stages covered41 - Applicable standards and regulations422. Establish risk acceptability criteria:43 - Define probability categories (P1-P5)44 - Define severity categories (S1-S5)45 - Create risk matrix with acceptance thresholds463. Assign responsibilities:47 - Risk management lead48 - Subject matter experts49 - Approval authorities504. Define verification activities:51 - Methods for control verification52 - Acceptance criteria535. Plan production and post-production activities:54 - Information sources55 - Review triggers56 - Update procedures576. Obtain plan approval587. Establish risk management file598. **Validation:** Plan approved; acceptability criteria defined; responsibilities assigned; file established6061### Risk Management Plan Content6263| Section | Content | Evidence |64|---------|---------|----------|65| Scope | Device and lifecycle coverage | Scope statement |66| Criteria | Risk acceptability matrix | Risk matrix document |67| Responsibilities | Roles and authorities | RACI chart |68| Verification | Methods and acceptance | Verification plan |69| Production/Post-Production | Monitoring activities | Surveillance plan |7071### Risk Acceptability Matrix (5x5)7273| Probability \ Severity | Negligible | Minor | Serious | Critical | Catastrophic |74|------------------------|------------|-------|---------|----------|--------------|75| **Frequent (P5)** | Medium | High | High | Unacceptable | Unacceptable |76| **Probable (P4)** | Medium | Medium | High | High | Unacceptable |77| **Occasional (P3)** | Low | Medium | Medium | High | High |78| **Remote (P2)** | Low | Low | Medium | Medium | High |79| **Improbable (P1)** | Low | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |8081### Risk Level Actions8283| Level | Acceptable | Action Required |84|-------|------------|-----------------|85| Low | Yes | Document and accept; still reduce as far as possible (EU MDR) |86| Medium | After reduction AFAP | Reduce as far as possible; document why further reduction is impossible |87| High | After reduction AFAP | Reduction required; demonstrate all further options exhausted |88| Unacceptable | No | Design change mandatory |8990> **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.9192---9394## Risk Analysis Workflow9596Identify hazards and estimate risks systematically.9798### Workflow: Conduct Risk Analysis991001. Define intended use and reasonably foreseeable misuse:101 - Medical indication102 - Patient population103 - User population104 - Use environment1052. Select analysis method(s):106 - FMEA for component/function analysis107 - FTA for system-level analysis108 - HAZOP for process deviations109 - Use Error Analysis for user interaction1103. Identify hazards by category:111 - Energy hazards (electrical, mechanical, thermal)112 - Biological hazards (bioburden, biocompatibility)113 - Chemical hazards (residues, leachables)114 - Operational hazards (software, use errors)1154. Determine hazardous situations:116 - Sequence of events117 - Foreseeable misuse scenarios118 - Single fault conditions1195. Estimate probability of harm (P1-P5)1206. Estimate severity of harm (S1-S5)1217. Document in hazard analysis worksheet1228. **Validation:** All hazard categories addressed; all hazards documented; probability and severity assigned123124### Hazard Categories Checklist125126| Category | Examples | Analyzed |127|----------|----------|----------|128| Electrical | Shock, burns, interference | ☐ |129| Mechanical | Crushing, cutting, entrapment | ☐ |130| Thermal | Burns, tissue damage | ☐ |131| Radiation | Ionizing, non-ionizing | ☐ |132| Biological | Infection, biocompatibility | ☐ |133| Chemical | Toxicity, irritation | ☐ |134| Software | Incorrect output, timing | ☐ |135| Use Error | Misuse, perception, cognition | ☐ |136| Environment | EMC, mechanical stress | ☐ |137138### Analysis Method Selection139140| Situation | Recommended Method |141|-----------|-------------------|142| Component failures | FMEA |143| System-level failure | FTA |144| Process deviations | HAZOP |145| User interaction | Use Error Analysis |146| Software behavior | Software FMEA |147| Early design phase | PHA |148149### Probability Criteria150151| Level | Name | Description | Frequency |152|-------|------|-------------|-----------|153| P5 | Frequent | Expected to occur | >10⁻³ |154| P4 | Probable | Likely to occur | 10⁻³ to 10⁻⁴ |155| P3 | Occasional | May occur | 10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁵ |156| P2 | Remote | Unlikely | 10⁻⁵ to 10⁻⁶ |157| P1 | Improbable | Very unlikely | <10⁻⁶ |158159### Severity Criteria160161| Level | Name | Description | Harm |162|-------|------|-------------|------|163| S5 | Catastrophic | Death | Death |164| S4 | Critical | Permanent impairment | Irreversible injury |165| S3 | Serious | Injury requiring intervention | Reversible injury |166| S2 | Minor | Temporary discomfort | No treatment needed |167| S1 | Negligible | Inconvenience | No injury |168169See: [references/risk-analysis-methods.md](references/risk-analysis-methods.md)170171---172173## Risk Evaluation Workflow174175Evaluate risks against acceptability criteria.176177### Workflow: Evaluate Identified Risks1781791. Calculate initial risk level from probability × severity1802. Compare to risk acceptability criteria1813. For each risk, determine:182 - Acceptable: Document and accept (EU MDR: still reduce as far as possible)183 - Reduction required (AFAP): Proceed to risk control184 - Unacceptable: Mandatory risk control1854. Document evaluation rationale1865. Identify risks requiring benefit-risk analysis1876. Complete benefit-risk analysis if applicable1887. Compile risk evaluation summary1898. **Validation:** All risks evaluated; acceptability determined; rationale documented190191### Risk Evaluation Decision Tree192193```194Risk Estimated195 │196 ▼197Apply Acceptability Criteria198 │199 ├── Low Risk ──────────► Accept and document200 │201 ├── Medium Risk ───────► Reduce as far as possible (AFAP)202 │ │ Document why further reduction impossible203 │ ▼204 │ Further reduction possible?205 │ │206 │ Yes──► Implement control207 │ No───► Document AFAP rationale (no economic considerations)208 │209 ├── High Risk ─────────► Risk reduction required210 │ │ Must demonstrate reduction AFAP211 │ ▼212 │ Implement control213 │ Verify residual risk214 │215 └── Unacceptable ──────► Design change mandatory216 Cannot proceed without control217```218219### AFAP Demonstration Requirements (EU MDR)220221| Criterion | Evidence Required |222|-----------|-------------------|223| All control options considered | Analysis of every feasible control per the hierarchy (design, protective measures, information) |224| Further reduction impossible | Evidence each remaining option is technically infeasible or does not further reduce risk |225| State of the art | Comparison to similar devices and current standards |226| Stakeholder input | Clinical/user perspectives |227228> 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.229230### Benefit-Risk Analysis Triggers231232| Situation | Benefit-Risk Required |233|-----------|----------------------|234| Residual risk remains high | Yes |235| No feasible risk reduction | Yes |236| Novel device | Yes |237| Unacceptable risk with clinical benefit | Yes |238| All risks low | No |239240---241242## Risk Control Workflow243244Implement and verify risk control measures.245246### Workflow: Implement Risk Controls2472481. Identify risk control options:249 - Inherent safety by design (Priority 1)250 - Protective measures in device (Priority 2)251 - Information for safety (Priority 3)2522. Select optimal control following hierarchy2533. Analyze control for new hazards introduced2544. Document control in design requirements2555. Implement control in design2566. Develop verification protocol2577. Execute verification and document results2588. Evaluate residual risk with control in place2599. **Validation:** Control implemented; verification passed; residual risk acceptable; no unaddressed new hazards260261### Risk Control Hierarchy262263| Priority | Control Type | Examples | Effectiveness |264|----------|--------------|----------|---------------|265| 1 | Inherent Safety | Eliminate hazard, fail-safe design | Highest |266| 2 | Protective Measures | Guards, alarms, automatic shutdown | High |267| 3 | Information | Warnings, training, IFU | Lower |268269### Risk Control Option Analysis Template270271```272RISK CONTROL OPTION ANALYSIS273274Hazard ID: H-[XXX]275Hazard: [Description]276Initial Risk: P[X] × S[X] = [Level]277278OPTIONS CONSIDERED:279| Option | Control Type | New Hazards | Feasibility | Selected |280|--------|--------------|-------------|-------------|----------|281| 1 | [Type] | [Yes/No] | [H/M/L] | [Yes/No] |282| 2 | [Type] | [Yes/No] | [H/M/L] | [Yes/No] |283284SELECTED CONTROL: Option [X]285Rationale: [Justification for selection]286287IMPLEMENTATION:288- Requirement: [REQ-XXX]289- Design Document: [Reference]290291VERIFICATION:292- Method: [Test/Analysis/Review]293- Protocol: [Reference]294- Acceptance Criteria: [Criteria]295```296297### Risk Control Verification Methods298299| Method | When to Use | Evidence |300|--------|-------------|----------|301| Test | Quantifiable performance | Test report |302| Inspection | Physical presence | Inspection record |303| Analysis | Design calculation | Analysis report |304| Review | Documentation check | Review record |305306### Residual Risk Evaluation307308| After Control | Action |309|---------------|--------|310| Acceptable | Document, proceed |311| Reduced AFAP | Document rationale (no economic considerations), proceed |312| Still unacceptable | Additional control or design change |313| New hazard introduced | Analyze and control new hazard |314315---316317## Post-Production Risk Management318319Monitor and update risk management throughout product lifecycle.320321### Workflow: Post-Production Risk Monitoring3223231. Identify information sources:324 - Customer complaints325 - Service reports326 - Vigilance/adverse events327 - Literature monitoring328 - Clinical studies3292. Establish collection procedures3303. Define review triggers:331 - New hazard identified332 - Increased frequency of known hazard333 - Serious incident334 - Regulatory feedback3354. Analyze incoming information for risk relevance3365. Update risk management file as needed3376. Communicate significant findings3387. Conduct periodic risk management review3398. **Validation:** Information sources monitored; file current; reviews completed per schedule340341### Information Sources342343| Source | Information Type | Review Frequency |344|--------|------------------|------------------|345| Complaints | Use issues, failures | Continuous |346| Service | Field failures, repairs | Monthly |347| Vigilance | Serious incidents | Immediate |348| Literature | Similar device issues | Quarterly |349| Regulatory | Authority feedback | As received |350| Clinical | PMCF data | Per plan |351352### Risk Management File Update Triggers353354| Trigger | Response Time | Action |355|---------|---------------|--------|356| Serious incident | Immediate | Full risk review |357| New hazard identified | 30 days | Risk analysis update |358| Trend increase | 60 days | Trend analysis |359| Design change | Before implementation | Impact assessment |360| Standards update | Per transition period | Gap analysis |361362### Periodic Review Requirements363364| Review Element | Frequency |365|----------------|-----------|366| Risk management file completeness | Annual |367| Risk control effectiveness | Annual |368| Post-market information analysis | Quarterly |369| Risk-benefit conclusions | Annual or on new data |370371---372373## Risk Assessment Templates374→ See references/risk-assessment-templates.md for details375376## Decision Frameworks377378### Risk Control Selection379380```381What is the risk level?382 │383 ├── Unacceptable ──► Can hazard be eliminated?384 │ │385 │ Yes─┴─No386 │ │ │387 │ ▼ ▼388 │ Eliminate Can protective389 │ hazard measure reduce?390 │ │391 │ Yes─┴─No392 │ │ │393 │ ▼ ▼394 │ Add Add warning395 │ protection + training396 │397 └── High/Medium ──► Apply hierarchy398 starting at Level 1399```400401### New Hazard Analysis402403| Question | If Yes | If No |404|----------|--------|-------|405| Does control introduce new hazard? | Analyze new hazard | Proceed |406| Is new risk higher than original? | Reject control option | Acceptable trade-off |407| Can new hazard be controlled? | Add control | Reject control option |408409### Risk Acceptability Decision410411| Condition | Decision |412|-----------|----------|413| All risks Low | Acceptable |414| Medium risks reduced AFAP | Acceptable |415| High risks reduced AFAP, documented | Acceptable if benefits outweigh |416| Any Unacceptable residual | Not acceptable - redesign |417418---419420## Tools and References421422### Scripts423424| Tool | Purpose | Usage |425|------|---------|-------|426| [risk_matrix_calculator.py](scripts/risk_matrix_calculator.py) | Calculate risk levels and FMEA RPN | `python risk_matrix_calculator.py --help` |427428**Risk Matrix Calculator Features:**429- Illustrative 5x5 risk matrix calculation for an ISO 14971 workflow430- FMEA RPN (Risk Priority Number) calculation431- Interactive mode for guided assessment432- Display risk criteria definitions433- JSON output for integration434435Before use in a regulated file, replace or formally approve the example matrix,436probability bands, severity definitions, and RPN action thresholds.437438### References439440| Document | Content |441|----------|---------|442| [iso14971-implementation-guide.md](references/iso14971-implementation-guide.md) | Complete ISO 14971:2019 implementation with templates |443| [risk-analysis-methods.md](references/risk-analysis-methods.md) | FMEA, FTA, HAZOP, Use Error Analysis methods |444445### Quick Reference: ISO 14971 Process446447| Stage | Key Activities | Output |448|-------|----------------|--------|449| Planning | Define scope, criteria, responsibilities | Risk Management Plan |450| Analysis | Identify hazards, estimate risk | Hazard Analysis |451| Evaluation | Compare to criteria, AFAP assessment (EU) | Risk Evaluation |452| Control | Implement hierarchy, verify | Risk Control Records |453| Residual | Overall assessment, benefit-risk | Risk Management Report |454| Production | Monitor, review, update | Updated RM File |455456---457458## Related Skills459460| Skill | Integration Point |461|-------|-------------------|462| [quality-manager-qms-iso13485](https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/tree/main/ra-qm-team/skills/quality-manager-qms-iso13485) | QMS integration |463| [capa-officer](https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/tree/main/ra-qm-team/skills/capa-officer) | Risk-based CAPA |464| [regulatory-affairs-head](https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/tree/main/ra-qm-team/skills/regulatory-affairs-head) | Regulatory submissions |465| [quality-documentation-manager](https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/tree/main/ra-qm-team/skills/quality-documentation-manager) | Risk file management |