LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement/FDA Proposes Medical Device Software Documentation Requirements
Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement

FDA Proposes Medical Device Software Documentation Requirements

November 18, 2021 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

Secondary#clinicaldecisionsoftwear#fdaguidance

Recently, we reported on various guidances the FDA intends to issue in the coming year. The documents were heavy on assuring the safety and effectiveness of software and clinical decision software (CDS).

FDA “Thinking”

On November 4, 2021, the agency issued a 39-page proposed guidance for “Premarket Submissions for Device Software Functions.” The document describes the agency’s “thinking on the recommended documentation sponsors should include in premarket submissions for FDA’s evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of device software functions.”

The document pertains to device software functions, including software in a medical device (SiMD) and software as a medical device (SaMD).

For the example, the agency may request additional information that is needed to evaluate software related to the requirements of the Quality System Regulation (QSR). As part of QSR design controls, a manufacturer must “establish and maintain procedures for validating the devices design,” which “shall include software validation and risk analysis, where appropriate.”

The thinking incorporates recent changes made by the 21st Century Cures Act. It also considers the rapidly evolving nature of digital health and recent FDA recognized consensus standards related to software.

This guidance does not apply to automated manufacturing and Quality System software or software that is not a device.

Recommended Documentation

Advertisement

Here’s the recommended documentation the agency says sponsors should include in premarket submissions:

  • firmware and other means for software-based control of medical devices;
  • stand-alone software applications;
  • software intended to be operated on general-purpose computing platforms;
  • dedicated hardware/software medical devices; and
  • accessories to medical devices when those accessories contain or are composed of software.

In addition, the guidance provides an outline of the recommended documentation for each software documentation element and corresponding “basic” or “enhanced” documentation level.

For example (one of many), when it comes to software specifics, the agency will want to know:

  • What programming languages and compiler versions are used?
  • What hardware platforms are used?
  • What operating systems are used (if applicable)?
  • Does the device use Off-The-Shelf (OTS) software(s)?
  • What is the intended release version? If the intended release version is different from the documentation’s version, explain the differences.

Submit Comments

As noted, the agency’s thinking covers 39 pages. There’s lots to digest.

You’ve got 90 days from the date of issuance to comment on the proposed guidance.

Submit electronic comments to https://www.regulations.gov.

Submit written comments to the Dockets Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061, (HFA-305), Rockville, MD 20852.

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy