Author: Suzanne Broussard
The Summary of Safety and Clinical Performance (SSCP) plays an important part of the very strong post-market follow-up required in MDR 2017/745 for implantable and class III medical devices. The SSCP is intended to provide healthcare workers and relevant patients access to current clinical data and other information about the safety and clinical performance of the medical device.
SSCP is 1 of 2 yearly reports required of manufacturers to remain complaint under MDR to market medical devices in the European Union. The 2 reports are the Product Safety Update Report (PSUR) and the Summary of Safety and Clinical Performance (SSCP). The SSCP is not the same as the regular CER update. The SSCP needs to be updated when the PMCF and PSUR are updated as part of the ongoing lifecycle of these regulatory documents.
The specific requirements of the SSCP can be found in Article 32 of MDR 2017/745. In addition, the European Union released MDCG 2019-9: Summary of safety and clinical performance, A guide for manufactures and notified bodies to provide guidance on the presentation of content in the validation of the SSCP.
The guidance document outlines the minimum content required, and the manufacturer is encouraged to include additional information to enhance the readers understanding of the device’s safety and performance. Of course, the additional information cannot include promotional material and should not interfere with readability. Manufacturers should also keep in mind that the SSCP must be validated by notified bodies (NB); the guideline also provides information for NBs that the manufacturer can use to ensure that the SSPC includes all the relevant information.
Another point to consider is that the target audience is healthcare workers as well as relevant patients. The European Commission considers relevant patients the target audience in special circumstances where the patient is directly engaged in the use of the device, such as implantable devices for which patients will be given an implant card and class III devices that are intended to be used directly by the patient.
However, once the European Database on Medical Devices (Eudamed) database goes live May 26, 2022, the SSCP can be accessed by anyone and everyone.
The SSCP should always have 2 parts. One part for healthcare professionals, and a second part for patients. Ensuring the SSCP includes a writeup that targets both audiences requires medical writers with strong technical writing skills and writers that transform complex scientific information into easy to read content.
The SSCP has 9 sections that need to be addressed:
1. The identification of the device and the manufacturer, including the Basic UDI-DI and, if already issued, the SRN (single registration number)
2. The intended purpose of the device and any indications, contraindication and target populations
3. A description of the device, including a reference to previous generations(s) of variants if such exist, and a description of the differences, as well as, where relevant, a description of any accessories, other devices and products, which are intended to be used in combination with the device.
4. Information on any residual risks and any undesirable effects, warnings and precautions
5. The summary of clinical evaluation as referred to in Annex XIV, and relevant information on post-market clinical follow-up
6. Possible diagnostic or therapeutic alternatives
7. Suggested profile and training for users
8. Reference to any harmonized standards and CS applied
9. Revision history
While the SSCP provides a plethora of information, MDCG 2019-9 clearly states that SSCP is not intended to:
Unlike the Post-Market Clinical Follow-Up (PMCF) plans and report, the SSCP is only required for implantable and class III medical devices. Custom made and investigational devices are the exceptions that do not require an SSCP.
The data needs to be presented in an objective manner that clearly summarizes both favorable data and unfavorable data. Putting together an SSCP that includes the devices benefit to risk, diagnostic and therapeutic alternatives as well as the specific conditions in which the device is considered can be a real challenge. All SSCPs need to be entered into the Eudamed. The fact that SSCPCs will be available to the public as soon as Eudamed is updated and goes live in 2022 puts even more pressure on getting the SSCP right.
Criterion Edge works with experienced medical writers to help ensure that the critical SSCP elements, such as the source of quality data, are correctly disclosed in the SSCP. Chat with us about our experience with SSCPs.
Tags: EUDAMED, MDCG, MDR, safety and clinical performance, SSCP
This white paper outlines strategies for the verification of device safety and performance as well as tips to define parameters to determine the acceptability of benefit-risk.
In this practical presentation, Criterion Edge breaks down the steps of the SLR process and takes a wholistic approach to conducting an IVDR-compliant SLR. Using case studies, the presentation illustrates the effective use of SLR-derived data to develop the Scientific Validity Report (SVR) and the Clinical Performance Report (CPR).
This white paper is a companion piece to our popular webinar where we share our insights on using the Systematic
Literature Review (SLR) to Empower Data-Driven Decisions in your Organization.
In this webinar, we share the process of systematic literature review, and discuss the tools and best practices for creating a methodologically-sound systematic literature review.
In this webinar, Dr. Sarah Chavez provides an overview of the State of the Art section, and explains how it fits into the overall process of writing a successful, IVDR-compliant Performance Evaluation Report (PER) in a reasonable time frame. A complete readiness assessment and gap analysis will help you identify critical resources, feeder documents, and expertise needed to establish that your IVD may be considered “state-of-the-art.” Ultimately, knowing what the Notified Body expects to see will help you avoid project delays and discover efficiencies in the SOA development process.
This white paper is a companion piece to our popular webinar where we break down the steps of the systematic literature review (SLR) process and take a wholistic approach to conducting an In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR)- compliant SLR.
This white paper is a companion piece to our popular webinar where we cover the state of the art process and how it
fits into the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR).
Fill out this form, or contact us at info@criterionedge.com, and we would be happy to answer any of your questions as well as book you an appointment to discuss your project needs during a time that works for you.
In this discussion, we provide an overview of how to plan and coordinate change within an organization to meet upcoming EU IVDR regulatory requirements. We will be highlighting key steps involved in helping medical affairs transition to a more rigorous regulatory environments, and how to evaluate talent gaps, team leadership composition, and process challenges of your product portfolio.
This white paper is a companion piece to our popular webinar where we share some of the best approaches we have
discovered for Corporate Scientific Communication Strategies.
In this discussion, our panel of proven leaders discuss the key elements that support and propel the innovation process in the medical device, pharmaceutical, and IVD industries. We will be highlighting key areas of the process, important players in the pathway to the market, and how successful innovations spawn new innovations in new markets such as the digital health space, and more.
This white paper is a companion piece to our popular webinar that uncovers what we have learned from our experience in writing Medical Device Regulation (MDR)-compliant Clinical Evaluation Reports (CERs), and how urgently applicable some of these key learnings are in preparing a robust Performance Evaluation Report (PER).
This white paper is a companion piece to our popular webinar where we share some of the biggest issues we have discovered when starting a Clinical Evaluation Report (CER) project, and how to anticipate and avoid project delays.
This companion piece to our popular webinar discusses strategies for assessing key components of your CER like clinical data sources and risk-benefit analysis.
This white paper outlines strategies to assess your CER including state of the art, safety and performance criteria, equivalence and systematic literature review.
Have the IVDR Performance Evaluation and Post Market Surveillance requirements got you tied up in knots? Where do you start? What does the end product look like? We are joined by the VP of Regulatory, Quality, and Clinical from Nextern, a collaborative medical device company bringing unmatched core competence in medical device product design and development. Criterion Edge’s President Laurie Mitchell will lead a discussion of their experiences supporting clients through MDR and IVDR requirements.
In this practical presentation, President Laurie Mitchell will: 1) discuss how an effective scientific communication plan is an important marketing tool for an organization, and 2) present five strategies to ensure your corporate objectives are supported and maximize the real-world impact of your data. Join us to learn how this applies to your organization and how to implement these strategies into your current processes.
In this practical presentation, Criterion Edge uncovers what we have learned from our experience in writing MDR-compliant CERs, and how urgently applicable some of these key learnings are in preparing a robust Performance Evaluation Report (PER).
As we all know, the MDR has significantly increased both the quality and quantity of inputs needed to complete a CER, needing more up-front planning than the reports have in the past. Based on our experiences with clients both large and small, our President, Laurie Mitchell, shares some of the biggest issues we have discovered when starting an MDR CER project. Laurie also reveals some of the most successful strategies in addressing these issues, up-front and early.
In this second installment of our 2-part webinar series, Criterion Edge shares practical presentation to help you assess your CER through the critical lens of a writer and identify possible gaps for mitigation before prior to submission to regulatory authorities.
In this webinar, we share the process of systematic literature review, and discuss the tools and best practices for creating a methodologically-sound systematic literature review.
Watch this video to learn how Criterion Edge is different from the rest.
This infographic goes through 5 key questions to go through in order to control your budget.
Leading industry experts come together to discuss how the MDR affects data management within their respective units.
This report clarifies the modifications to the equivalence guidelines in MEDDEV 2.7/1 and Quality Management Systems (QMS) ISO 13485 standard to help develop strategies.
This gap analysis addresses key revisions to evaluator qualifications and scientific validity in the Clinical Evaluation (CE) MEDDEV guideline rev.4.
The changes to 2.7/1 rev. 4 suggest the need to submit more frequent CERs to regulatory authorities, however, strategies will be discussed for managing the increased requirements.
Every time a healthcare provider makes a notation in the medical chart, a significant and valuable piece of data has been created. This paper discusses the implications of this.
This piece discusses 10 key strategies to building an efficient regulatory writing process.
In this paper, we discuss a prominent clarification on the MEDDEV 2.7.1 rev 4, establishing the “state of the art” section.
The overwhelming turnout at the ‘How to Assess Your CER for MDR Readiness, Part 1’ prompted us to host a live Q+A session where President Laurie Mitchell exclusively answers all your questions.
President Laurie Mitchell returns to continue sharing more about the importance of the systematic literature review.
Establishing and defining state of the art for a medical device is no longer an isolated task – it supports the entire Clinical Evaluation Report (CER). Multiple sections of the MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4 compliant CER need to be supported by state of the art data, including safety and performance, risk management, and equivalence.
In this first installment of a 2-part webinar series, Criterion Edge will present strategies for assessing key components of your CER (or CER template) for possible misalignment with significant and applicable MDR requirements.
In this webinar, President Laurie Mitchell discusses why safety reviews are essential in the entire life cycle of product development.
Kyoko Hattori from Criterion Edge returns to discuss best practices for managing the adjudication process in-house, and Brian Kelly from AG Mednet will share how the “JUDI” platform can simplify the management of adjudication.
In this webinar, learn about CECs, familiarization with regulatory guidance, decision factors leading to use of a CEC, and much more.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Read more about our privacy policy here.
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
This website uses Google Tag Manager and Pardot's tracking features to collect information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages. Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.
Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!
