New labor monitoring devices must meet guidance specs
Device Regulation Alert: Safety, Compliance and Reimbursement News, June 4, 2007
Any company submitting pre-market notification for a computerized labor monitoring system must address specific issues described in FDA special control guidance released in April. The term "computerized labor monitoring system" refers to a device that measures cervical dilation and fetal head descent during labor using a monitor and ultrasound transducers. Effective May 24, any company submitting premarket notification for such a device must demonstrate the device meets the guidance recommendations or otherwise assure the FDA of the device's safety and effectiveness.
At the same time the FDA issued the guidance, it published a Federal Register notice classifying labor monitoring devices in class II (special control) because special controls "provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use." The FDA noted in the Federal Register notice announcing the classification that placing the device in class II would alleviate the cost of premarket approval and could allow small companies producing such a labor monitoring system to compete in the marketplace.
The FDA guidance identified the following risks that should be addressed in a company's premarket notification documents:
The guidance recommends ways to mitigate these risks. Manufacturers must discuss in their premarket notification how they have addressed these risks but only have to show that their device meets the recommendations in the guidance or "in some other way provides equivalent assurance of safety and effectiveness."
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- News and briefs: Oklahoma Osteopathic Association against residency bill change
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Joint Commission Center announces handoff communication solutions
- Inside best practice: Reduce patient falls with a stoplight
- Identify modifiable risk factors to prevent patient falls
- Hospitalist-surgeon comanagement has no effect on outcomes
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Searched
