Software in Medical Devices

In the last two posts, we've seen what a software unit is, and when to do software detailed design, according to IEC 62304 and FDA Guidances.

I didn't have time to post anything worth it this week.
To give a side view of my last post about software classes, here is a link to DO-178B on wikipedia. It is the reference about software embarked in aircrafts.
If you take time to read this document, you will see that it goes very further than what we have today in IEC 62304. The constraints about design on high classes are very very hard to respect. That's normal, when you think that software is used in flight commands and other stuff in the cockpit.
It has some side effects, mainly to stretch software development projects, and to ban software from some parts of the plane, for cost-driven reasons.
For example, a microcontroler plus software plus electric motors would be perfect to memorize and retreive the position settings of the pilot's seat. But the cost to develop such software is very high, as the pilot's seat is seen as a critical component. Aircraft manufacturers prefer replacing software and microcontroler by good old analogic electronics to do the same task on some models.
In my humble opinion, the constraints of the two highest classes for software in aircrafts would be to high for medical devices. There is always a pratician, or an emergency medical service, able to "catch" the patient if something goes wrong. Whereas there is nobody to "catch" a falling plane if its flight commands fail. The consequences of risks are far higher in aircrafts, with potentially hundreds of victims in an accident.
That is why classes A, B and C, and their design constraints are enough for medical devices.

Next week, I'll talk about exemptions of ISO13485 for standalone software medical devices.
Bye.

This article is the last of three articles which deal with the concept of "inflation" of medical devices. The first one was on inflation of standards, the second about inflation of regulations. This one, the most interesting to my eyes, is about multiplication of apps on mobile devices, especially smartphones and tablets.
More that 6000 apps are classified in the "heath", "heathcare" or "medical" categories of the Apple or Android appstores. Many of these apps are classified as medical devices and are in the scope of regulations like FDA and CE Mark. Note that some apps may be regulated the FDA but not the CE Mark or vice-versa.

New! MEDDEV 2.1/6 Guidelines on classification of standalone software released!
HIS, CIS, PDMS, RIS, PACS, LIMS … Which ones are medical devices, which ones are not?
To answer this question, the European Commission issued a new Guidelines document: MEDDEV 2.1/6, about the qualification and classification of standalone software as Medical Devices or In Vitro Diagnosis Devices.
Download here
After the draft guidance of the FDA about mobile apps, after the guide on regulation of health apps by a UK medical charity, this MEDEV is the third document released in a few months about standalone software.

In How to classify and CE mark software, I tried to make a thorough explanation about how to obtain CE mark for software medical devices. Here is a short explanation about Canadian rules.