Review of minutes and open topics from previous meeting
Romuald will distribute an email with the request of deleting all existing bi-weekly calls and send a new sequence of requests starting on 22.Oct.2015
All
02a.a
RPS vs. US 510k mapping Yong prepared a mapping between RPS IVD vs. US 510kand RPS nIVD vs. US 510k. -Because RPS is not yet implemented, it is based on personal view and understanding
Yong
Done
We have to include additional 2 tabs into our xsl document – to have all comparison in one place à new version MAPPING_DIA EDM Reference Mode_10
Metod
Done
02c
Proposed artifact namesshould be unique regardless of its position within the model in order to avoid confusion. Check for duplicates should be performed.
All
Future
02d
Proposed artifact names should be checked in the context of the authoring process. In case artifacts are in reality authored as several sub-artifacts and later compiled together, another level of sub-artifacts should be introduced to cover this scenario.
All
Future
03
Metadata matrix
Metadata mapping should be checked
All
Future
04
Terminology used in Reference Model
Suggestion to introduce additional column(s) for definition of terms – to standardise and to have common understanding. This topic is closely related to several other topics and for the time being we need first to define – review the terms to standardise and to have common understanding
Ongoing
04a
Try to add additional columns and assess/discuss the complexity with the team Example was prepared on tab Regulatory Admin where the additional column (L - Definition / Purpose) was inserted. The approach would be – make it simple, use the existing definitions where possible and not to go into regional/ country specifics.
It would be appreciated if the workload can be widespread within the team to easily cover all items
Metod
On hold (04b)
04b
Review the Terms Definition section of the Quality Model to see, how it can be leveraged. It seems, terms need to be defined before continuing the work with following items: -02c -02d
-03
-04a
-09b
-10
Romuald will take the 1st look and suggest an approach leveraging the work done in Quality.
The result of the discussion with the Quality Model team was: they did it one by one.
Romuald prepared a starting point file and agreed to send it all participants od this call.
Everyone will pick one term and provide a definition back to Romuald before next call. This should kick off the process.
Romuald
Ongoing
05
How to improve the visibility of the team and the initiative.
Spread the info around – list of potential members / contributors
All
Ongoing
05a
Approach medical devices forums and associations to test their motivation to join the Ref. Model initiative: -IMDRF -ADVAMED
-MEDTECHEUROPE
(See links below)
Romuald B. In progress
Ongoing
06
Webex – technical issue with voice quality
dial-in option should be investigated
Romuald B.
Done
The VOIP quality seems to be OK.
07
Structure mapping between RPS nIVD and STED nIVD (TAB07)
Review the current mapping between RPS and STED (TAB 07)
Question was raised whether it would be more convenient if the reference model sheets should be separated from the mapping sheets in order to have 2 leaner excel files. Steve’s opinion was to keep all the things in one sheet to facilitate consistency.
Done
09b
Model mapping
Question was raised whether to use unique coding for each model (RPS codes should be used just for cross-reference and not as primary coding). When cross-checked with the Submission reference model, they don’t use specific coding and present CTD mapping on in the attributes section.
On hold (04b)
09b.a
Once we have the definition of terms, it will be used to create unique coding
On hold (04b)
10
Artefacts meta data
Start to identify required meta data fields: -Mandatory (M) -Optional (O)
-Cardinality
On hold (04b)
10a
We should use those individual tabs for future work.Who should do what? à Next time?
RPS_RM_Sort by Group was break-down to individual xls sheets per Domain: -Regulatory Admin – contains proposed meta data fields (without info for M/O) -Quality – contains some meta data fields together with draft proposal for M/O
-Labeling - contains some meta data fields together with draft proposal for Cardinality
-Non-clinical - contains proposed meta data fields (without info for M/O)
-Clinical – same as Non-clinical - contains proposed meta data field
Ongoing
DIA EDM Reference Model – Devices: general info & References for RM:
STED – Authoring Group: Study Group 1 of the Global Harmonization Task Force
Summary Technical Documentation for Demonstrating Conformity to the Essential Principles of Safety and Performance of Medical Devices (STED), February 21, 2008
Summary Technical Documentation (STED) for Demonstrating Conformity to the Essential Principles of Safety and Performance of In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices, March 17th, 2011
(if any)
Yong prepared a mapping between RPS IVD vs. US 510kand RPS nIVD vs. US 510k. -Because RPS is not yet implemented, it is based on personal view and understanding
Example was prepared on tab Regulatory Admin where the additional column (L - Definition / Purpose) was inserted. The approach would be – make it simple, use the existing definitions where possible and not to go into regional/ country specifics.
It would be appreciated if the workload can be widespread within the team to easily cover all items
-03
-04a
-09b
-10
Romuald will take the 1st look and suggest an approach leveraging the work done in Quality.
The result of the discussion with the Quality Model team was: they did it one by one.
Romuald prepared a starting point file and agreed to send it all participants od this call.
Everyone will pick one term and provide a definition back to Romuald before next call. This should kick off the process.
-MEDTECHEUROPE
(See links below)
-Cardinality
-Labeling - contains some meta data fields together with draft proposal for Cardinality
-Non-clinical - contains proposed meta data fields (without info for M/O)
-Clinical – same as Non-clinical - contains proposed meta data field
Ongoing