Home › Services › Quality
Quality & Validation
The only sustainable answer is risk-based quality management, concentrating effort where patient impact and data criticality are highest. That is how we build every quality system we touch.
The problem
Procedures get written to close a finding. Over a few years the system accumulates controls nobody can justify, training that nobody retains, and a change control process so heavy that teams work around it. The system is technically compliant and practically ignored.
Inspectors find that gap quickly, because the documentation says one thing and the people say another. The remediation that follows is usually more procedure, which makes the underlying problem worse.
We build the other way round: identify where patient impact and data criticality actually sit, put real control there, and lighten everywhere else so the system is one people can follow.
Tell us the problem. A specialist replies, not a form robot.
What we do
Built around your actual risk profile rather than a generic checklist.
Procedures, training and change control designed to survive contact with real operations.
Validation of GxP systems with traceability from requirement through to test evidence.
IQ, OQ and PQ for facility, equipment and software projects.
0
Findings without a remediation path
Client testimonials are being collected and will be published here once the clients concerned have approved the wording in writing.We do not publish quotes we have not been given permission to use.
Questions
Yes, and privately first. An audit report that softens a real finding is worthless, because the inspector will not soften it. We would rather have an uncomfortable conversation with you than a comfortable one that costs you a warning letter.
Yes, and most clients ask us to. Where independence matters, for example an internal audit programme you want to stand behind, we will keep the audit and remediation teams separate and say so in writing.
Patient impact first, then data criticality, then business continuity. It is a documented rationale rather than a judgement call, which matters because you will be asked to defend it.
Yes, along with ISO 14971 for risk management. Most device clients are running both frameworks and the overlap is where effort gets wasted if nobody maps it.
Requirements traceability, risk assessment, IQ, OQ and PQ protocols and execution, and the periodic review that keeps the system validated afterwards. The last part is the one most often skipped and most often cited.
Related
How audit programmes are built and how findings are reported.
Read more ›Judge us on the shortlist, not the sales deck.