Risk Management Specialist
ISO 14971:2019 risk management implementation throughout the medical device lifecycle.
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:
- ISO 14971 5x5 risk matrix calculation
- FMEA RPN (Risk Priority Number) calculation
- Interactive mode for guided assessment
- Display risk criteria definitions
- JSON output for integration
References
| Document |
Content |
| iso14971-implementation-guide.md |
Complete ISO 14971:2019 implementation with templates |
| risk-analysis-methods.md |
FMEA, FTA, HAZOP, Use Error Analysis methods |
Quick Reference: ISO 14971 Process
| Stage |
Key Activities |
Output |
| Planning |
Define scope, criteria, responsibilities |
Risk Management Plan |
| Analysis |
Identify hazards, estimate risk |
Hazard Analysis |
| Evaluation |
Compare to criteria, AFAP assessment (EU) |
Risk Evaluation |
| Control |
Implement hierarchy, verify |
Risk Control Records |
| Residual |
Overall assessment, benefit-risk |
Risk Management Report |
| Production |
Monitor, review, update |
Updated RM File |
Related Skills
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...4license: MIT5---6
7# Risk Management Specialist
8
9ISO 14971:2019 risk management implementation throughout the medical device lifecycle.
10
11---
12
13## Table of Contents
14
15- [Risk Management Planning Workflow](#risk-management-planning-workflow)
16- [Risk Analysis Workflow](#risk-analysis-workflow)
17- [Risk Evaluation Workflow](#risk-evaluation-workflow)
18- [Risk Control Workflow](#risk-control-workflow)
19- [Post-Production Risk Management](#post-production-risk-management)
20- [Risk Assessment Templates](#risk-assessment-templates)
21- [Decision Frameworks](#decision-frameworks)
22- [Tools and References](#tools-and-references)
23
24---
25
26## Risk Management Planning Workflow
27
28Establish risk management process per ISO 14971.
29
30### Workflow: Create Risk Management Plan
31
321. Define scope of risk management activities:
33 - Medical device identification
34 - Lifecycle stages covered
35 - Applicable standards and regulations
362. Establish risk acceptability criteria:
37 - Define probability categories (P1-P5)
38 - Define severity categories (S1-S5)
39 - Create risk matrix with acceptance thresholds
403. Assign responsibilities:
41 - Risk management lead
42 - Subject matter experts
43 - Approval authorities
444. Define verification activities:
45 - Methods for control verification
46 - Acceptance criteria
475. Plan production and post-production activities:
48 - Information sources
49 - Review triggers
50 - Update procedures
516. Obtain plan approval
527. Establish risk management file
538. **Validation:** Plan approved; acceptability criteria defined; responsibilities assigned; file established
54
55### Risk Management Plan Content
56
57| Section | Content | Evidence |
58|---------|---------|----------|
59| Scope | Device and lifecycle coverage | Scope statement |
60| Criteria | Risk acceptability matrix | Risk matrix document |
61| Responsibilities | Roles and authorities | RACI chart |
62| Verification | Methods and acceptance | Verification plan |
63| Production/Post-Production | Monitoring activities | Surveillance plan |
64
65### Risk Acceptability Matrix (5x5)
66
67| Probability \ Severity | Negligible | Minor | Serious | Critical | Catastrophic |
68|------------------------|------------|-------|---------|----------|--------------|
69| **Frequent (P5)** | Medium | High | High | Unacceptable | Unacceptable |
70| **Probable (P4)** | Medium | Medium | High | High | Unacceptable |
71| **Occasional (P3)** | Low | Medium | Medium | High | High |
72| **Remote (P2)** | Low | Low | Medium | Medium | High |
73| **Improbable (P1)** | Low | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
74
75### Risk Level Actions
76
77| Level | Acceptable | Action Required |
78|-------|------------|-----------------|
79| Low | Yes | Document and accept; still reduce as far as possible (EU MDR) |
80| Medium | After reduction AFAP | Reduce as far as possible; document why further reduction is impossible |
81| High | After reduction AFAP | Reduction required; demonstrate all further options exhausted |
82| Unacceptable | No | Design change mandatory |
83
84> **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.
85
86---
87
88## Risk Analysis Workflow
89
90Identify hazards and estimate risks systematically.
91
92### Workflow: Conduct Risk Analysis
93
941. Define intended use and reasonably foreseeable misuse:
95 - Medical indication
96 - Patient population
97 - User population
98 - Use environment
992. Select analysis method(s):
100 - FMEA for component/function analysis
101 - FTA for system-level analysis
102 - HAZOP for process deviations
103 - Use Error Analysis for user interaction
1043. Identify hazards by category:
105 - Energy hazards (electrical, mechanical, thermal)
106 - Biological hazards (bioburden, biocompatibility)
107 - Chemical hazards (residues, leachables)
108 - Operational hazards (software, use errors)
1094. Determine hazardous situations:
110 - Sequence of events
111 - Foreseeable misuse scenarios
112 - Single fault conditions
1135. Estimate probability of harm (P1-P5)
1146. Estimate severity of harm (S1-S5)
1157. Document in hazard analysis worksheet
1168. **Validation:** All hazard categories addressed; all hazards documented; probability and severity assigned
117
118### Hazard Categories Checklist
119
120| Category | Examples | Analyzed |
121|----------|----------|----------|
122| Electrical | Shock, burns, interference | ☐ |
123| Mechanical | Crushing, cutting, entrapment | ☐ |
124| Thermal | Burns, tissue damage | ☐ |
125| Radiation | Ionizing, non-ionizing | ☐ |
126| Biological | Infection, biocompatibility | ☐ |
127| Chemical | Toxicity, irritation | ☐ |
128| Software | Incorrect output, timing | ☐ |
129| Use Error | Misuse, perception, cognition | ☐ |
130| Environment | EMC, mechanical stress | ☐ |
131
132### Analysis Method Selection
133
134| Situation | Recommended Method |
135|-----------|-------------------|
136| Component failures | FMEA |
137| System-level failure | FTA |
138| Process deviations | HAZOP |
139| User interaction | Use Error Analysis |
140| Software behavior | Software FMEA |
141| Early design phase | PHA |
142
143### Probability Criteria
144
145| Level | Name | Description | Frequency |
146|-------|------|-------------|-----------|
147| P5 | Frequent | Expected to occur | >10⁻³ |
148| P4 | Probable | Likely to occur | 10⁻³ to 10⁻⁴ |
149| P3 | Occasional | May occur | 10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁵ |
150| P2 | Remote | Unlikely | 10⁻⁵ to 10⁻⁶ |
151| P1 | Improbable | Very unlikely | <10⁻⁶ |
152
153### Severity Criteria
154
155| Level | Name | Description | Harm |
156|-------|------|-------------|------|
157| S5 | Catastrophic | Death | Death |
158| S4 | Critical | Permanent impairment | Irreversible injury |
159| S3 | Serious | Injury requiring intervention | Reversible injury |
160| S2 | Minor | Temporary discomfort | No treatment needed |
161| S1 | Negligible | Inconvenience | No injury |
162
163See: [references/risk-analysis-methods.md](references/risk-analysis-methods.md)
164
165---
166
167## Risk Evaluation Workflow
168
169Evaluate risks against acceptability criteria.
170
171### Workflow: Evaluate Identified Risks
172
1731. Calculate initial risk level from probability × severity
1742. Compare to risk acceptability criteria
1753. For each risk, determine:
176 - Acceptable: Document and accept (EU MDR: still reduce as far as possible)
177 - Reduction required (AFAP): Proceed to risk control
178 - Unacceptable: Mandatory risk control
1794. Document evaluation rationale
1805. Identify risks requiring benefit-risk analysis
1816. Complete benefit-risk analysis if applicable
1827. Compile risk evaluation summary
1838. **Validation:** All risks evaluated; acceptability determined; rationale documented
184
185### Risk Evaluation Decision Tree
186
187```
188Risk Estimated
189 │
190 ▼
191Apply Acceptability Criteria
192 │
193 ├── Low Risk ──────────► Accept and document
194 │
195 ├── Medium Risk ───────► Reduce as far as possible (AFAP)
196 │ │ Document why further reduction impossible
197 │ ▼
198 │ Further reduction possible?
199 │ │
200 │ Yes──► Implement control
201 │ No───► Document AFAP rationale (no economic considerations)
202 │
203 ├── High Risk ─────────► Risk reduction required
204 │ │ Must demonstrate reduction AFAP
205 │ ▼
206 │ Implement control
207 │ Verify residual risk
208 │
209 └── Unacceptable ──────► Design change mandatory
210 Cannot proceed without control
211```
212
213### AFAP Demonstration Requirements (EU MDR)
214
215| Criterion | Evidence Required |
216|-----------|-------------------|
217| All control options considered | Analysis of every feasible control per the hierarchy (design, protective measures, information) |
218| Further reduction impossible | Evidence each remaining option is technically infeasible or does not further reduce risk |
219| State of the art | Comparison to similar devices and current standards |
220| Stakeholder input | Clinical/user perspectives |
221
222> 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.
223
224### Benefit-Risk Analysis Triggers
225
226| Situation | Benefit-Risk Required |
227|-----------|----------------------|
228| Residual risk remains high | Yes |
229| No feasible risk reduction | Yes |
230| Novel device | Yes |
231| Unacceptable risk with clinical benefit | Yes |
232| All risks low | No |
233
234---
235
236## Risk Control Workflow
237
238Implement and verify risk control measures.
239
240### Workflow: Implement Risk Controls
241
2421. Identify risk control options:
243 - Inherent safety by design (Priority 1)
244 - Protective measures in device (Priority 2)
245 - Information for safety (Priority 3)
2462. Select optimal control following hierarchy
2473. Analyze control for new hazards introduced
2484. Document control in design requirements
2495. Implement control in design
2506. Develop verification protocol
2517. Execute verification and document results
2528. Evaluate residual risk with control in place
2539. **Validation:** Control implemented; verification passed; residual risk acceptable; no unaddressed new hazards
254
255### Risk Control Hierarchy
256
257| Priority | Control Type | Examples | Effectiveness |
258|----------|--------------|----------|---------------|
259| 1 | Inherent Safety | Eliminate hazard, fail-safe design | Highest |
260| 2 | Protective Measures | Guards, alarms, automatic shutdown | High |
261| 3 | Information | Warnings, training, IFU | Lower |
262
263### Risk Control Option Analysis Template
264
265```
266RISK CONTROL OPTION ANALYSIS
267
268Hazard ID: H-[XXX]
269Hazard: [Description]
270Initial Risk: P[X] × S[X] = [Level]
271
272OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
273| Option | Control Type | New Hazards | Feasibility | Selected |
274|--------|--------------|-------------|-------------|----------|
275| 1 | [Type] | [Yes/No] | [H/M/L] | [Yes/No] |
276| 2 | [Type] | [Yes/No] | [H/M/L] | [Yes/No] |
277
278SELECTED CONTROL: Option [X]
279Rationale: [Justification for selection]
280
281IMPLEMENTATION:
282- Requirement: [REQ-XXX]
283- Design Document: [Reference]
284
285VERIFICATION:
286- Method: [Test/Analysis/Review]
287- Protocol: [Reference]
288- Acceptance Criteria: [Criteria]
289```
290
291### Risk Control Verification Methods
292
293| Method | When to Use | Evidence |
294|--------|-------------|----------|
295| Test | Quantifiable performance | Test report |
296| Inspection | Physical presence | Inspection record |
297| Analysis | Design calculation | Analysis report |
298| Review | Documentation check | Review record |
299
300### Residual Risk Evaluation
301
302| After Control | Action |
303|---------------|--------|
304| Acceptable | Document, proceed |
305| Reduced AFAP | Document rationale (no economic considerations), proceed |
306| Still unacceptable | Additional control or design change |
307| New hazard introduced | Analyze and control new hazard |
308
309---
310
311## Post-Production Risk Management
312
313Monitor and update risk management throughout product lifecycle.
314
315### Workflow: Post-Production Risk Monitoring
316
3171. Identify information sources:
318 - Customer complaints
319 - Service reports
320 - Vigilance/adverse events
321 - Literature monitoring
322 - Clinical studies
3232. Establish collection procedures
3243. Define review triggers:
325 - New hazard identified
326 - Increased frequency of known hazard
327 - Serious incident
328 - Regulatory feedback
3294. Analyze incoming information for risk relevance
3305. Update risk management file as needed
3316. Communicate significant findings
3327. Conduct periodic risk management review
3338. **Validation:** Information sources monitored; file current; reviews completed per schedule
334
335### Information Sources
336
337| Source | Information Type | Review Frequency |
338|--------|------------------|------------------|
339| Complaints | Use issues, failures | Continuous |
340| Service | Field failures, repairs | Monthly |
341| Vigilance | Serious incidents | Immediate |
342| Literature | Similar device issues | Quarterly |
343| Regulatory | Authority feedback | As received |
344| Clinical | PMCF data | Per plan |
345
346### Risk Management File Update Triggers
347
348| Trigger | Response Time | Action |
349|---------|---------------|--------|
350| Serious incident | Immediate | Full risk review |
351| New hazard identified | 30 days | Risk analysis update |
352| Trend increase | 60 days | Trend analysis |
353| Design change | Before implementation | Impact assessment |
354| Standards update | Per transition period | Gap analysis |
355
356### Periodic Review Requirements
357
358| Review Element | Frequency |
359|----------------|-----------|
360| Risk management file completeness | Annual |
361| Risk control effectiveness | Annual |
362| Post-market information analysis | Quarterly |
363| Risk-benefit conclusions | Annual or on new data |
364
365---
366
367## Risk Assessment Templates
368→ See references/risk-assessment-templates.md for details
369
370## Decision Frameworks
371
372### Risk Control Selection
373
374```
375What is the risk level?
376 │
377 ├── Unacceptable ──► Can hazard be eliminated?
378 │ │
379 │ Yes─┴─No
380 │ │ │
381 │ ▼ ▼
382 │ Eliminate Can protective
383 │ hazard measure reduce?
384 │ │
385 │ Yes─┴─No
386 │ │ │
387 │ ▼ ▼
388 │ Add Add warning
389 │ protection + training
390 │
391 └── High/Medium ──► Apply hierarchy
392 starting at Level 1
393```
394
395### New Hazard Analysis
396
397| Question | If Yes | If No |
398|----------|--------|-------|
399| Does control introduce new hazard? | Analyze new hazard | Proceed |
400| Is new risk higher than original? | Reject control option | Acceptable trade-off |
401| Can new hazard be controlled? | Add control | Reject control option |
402
403### Risk Acceptability Decision
404
405| Condition | Decision |
406|-----------|----------|
407| All risks Low | Acceptable |
408| Medium risks reduced AFAP | Acceptable |
409| High risks reduced AFAP, documented | Acceptable if benefits outweigh |
410| Any Unacceptable residual | Not acceptable - redesign |
411
412---
413
414## Tools and References
415
416### Scripts
417
418| Tool | Purpose | Usage |
419|------|---------|-------|
420| [risk_matrix_calculator.py](scripts/risk_matrix_calculator.py) | Calculate risk levels and FMEA RPN | `python risk_matrix_calculator.py --help` |
421
422**Risk Matrix Calculator Features:**
423- ISO 14971 5x5 risk matrix calculation
424- FMEA RPN (Risk Priority Number) calculation
425- Interactive mode for guided assessment
426- Display risk criteria definitions
427- JSON output for integration
428
429### References
430
431| Document | Content |
432|----------|---------|
433| [iso14971-implementation-guide.md](references/iso14971-implementation-guide.md) | Complete ISO 14971:2019 implementation with templates |
434| [risk-analysis-methods.md](references/risk-analysis-methods.md) | FMEA, FTA, HAZOP, Use Error Analysis methods |
435
436### Quick Reference: ISO 14971 Process
437
438| Stage | Key Activities | Output |
439|-------|----------------|--------|
440| Planning | Define scope, criteria, responsibilities | Risk Management Plan |
441| Analysis | Identify hazards, estimate risk | Hazard Analysis |
442| Evaluation | Compare to criteria, AFAP assessment (EU) | Risk Evaluation |
443| Control | Implement hierarchy, verify | Risk Control Records |
444| Residual | Overall assessment, benefit-risk | Risk Management Report |
445| Production | Monitor, review, update | Updated RM File |
446
447---
448
449## Related Skills
450
451| Skill | Integration Point |
452|-------|-------------------|
453| [quality-manager-qms-iso13485](../quality-manager-qms-iso13485/) | QMS integration |
454| [capa-officer](../capa-officer/) | Risk-based CAPA |
455| [regulatory-affairs-head](../regulatory-affairs-head/) | Regulatory submissions |
456| [quality-documentation-manager](../quality-documentation-manager/) | Risk file management |