In the realm of quality assurance (QA), it’s vital that standard operating procedures (SOPs) are crafted in a way that accurately and specifically reflects the control measures, tasks, and processes that the organization can directly influence and manage. Here are several reasons why it is not advisable to include processes in SOPs that you have no control over, such as country-specific regulations for Real-World Evidence (RWE) studies:
[1] Inaccuracy and Inconsistency: Country-specific regulations can vary significantly and may change over time. The organization has no control over these changes and thus cannot guarantee that their SOPs will stay up-to-date with the current regulations in each country.
[2] Potential for Non-Compliance: If the SOP includes processes dictated by external regulations that subsequently change, the company might unknowingly be in non-compliance. This could lead to regulatory consequences, including fines or other penalties.
[3] Confusion: Inclusion of country-specific regulations in the SOPs can cause confusion among the staff who are required to follow these procedures. If an SOP describes a procedure that is not applicable or is different in their specific context, this could lead to errors, misunderstandings, or non-compliance.
[4] SOP Management Complexity: SOPs should be as concise, clear, and easy to manage as possible. By including country-specific regulations, the SOPs become more complex and harder to maintain, which increases the risk of errors and decreases efficiency.
Instead of including country-specific regulations in SOPs, a better approach would be to make SOPs generic enough to accommodate various situations, while ensuring compliance with overarching international or regional regulations. Furthermore, local teams should be trained and have access to resources that detail the country-specific regulations applicable to them. They could also have local operating procedures or instructions that explain how the SOP should be implemented in light of these regulations.
Finally, there should be a process in place to ensure that the organization is constantly up-to-date with any changes in country-specific regulations and can adjust its procedures accordingly. This might involve dedicated personnel or teams, use of regulatory consultancy services, or subscription to regulatory update feeds. These processes would lie outside the SOPs, but would be critical to maintaining regulatory compliance.
Share this story...
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – ICH GCP (R3) – Real World Evidence Context
RWE 101 - ICH GCP (R3) - Real World Evidence Context Revision 2 of ICH GCP caused confusion to those of us who work with non-interventional studies. The glossary [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Non-Interventional Studies vs Market Health Research
RWE 101 - Non-Interventional Studies vs Market Health Research Key differences between a non-interventional study (NIS) and market health research include:1. Research Objective: NIS are conducted to examine real-world [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Audits vs Inspections
RWE 101 - Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 - Audits vs Inspections In the context of regulatory compliance for Real-World Evidence (RWE), both audits and inspections play crucial roles, [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – A Career of Many Pathways
RWE 101 - A Career of Many Pathways Real-world evidence (RWE) refers to the information on health care that is derived from analysis of real-world data (RWD). RWE [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Evolution of Regulatory Affairs
RWE 101 - Evolution of Regulatory Affairs Real-world evidence (RWE) and real-world data (RWD) are increasingly influencing regulatory affairs in the biopharmaceutical and healthcare industry. This change has been [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Project Managers
RWE 101 - Project Managers Real-World Evidence (RWE) observational studies and clinical trials are both key elements of medical research, but they involve very different methodologies, aims, and requirements. [...]