We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
Accept
  • SKIP TO CONTENT
  • SKIP NAVIGATION
  • Drug News
    • Trending
    • Commercial Operations
    • GMPs
    • FDA Enforcement Actions
    • Inspections and Audits
    • Postmarket Safety
    • Quality
    • Regulatory Affairs
    • Research and Development
    • Submissions and Approvals
    • FDAnews Drug Weekly
    • FDAnews
  • Device News
    • Trending
    • Commercial Operations
    • FDA Enforcement Actions
    • Inspections and Audits
    • Postmarket Safety
    • Quality
    • Regulatory Affairs
    • Research and Development
    • Submissions and Approvals
    • FDAnews Device Weekly
    • FDAnews
  • Books
    • FDAnews Books Library
    • Drug Books
    • Device Books
  • Training/Events
    • Webinar Training Pass
    • Events
    • Webinar Recordings
  • Resources
    • Form 483s Database
    • FDA Approved Drugs
  • CenterWatch
  • About Us
    • The Company
    • FDAnews Editorial Board
    • Contact Us
  • Advertising
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Home » Audit Procedures, Other Problems Flagged at Isolux Facility

Audit Procedures, Other Problems Flagged at Isolux Facility

March 31, 2017

Isolux received a Form 483 for not adequately establishing procedures for quality audits, for not implementing a supplier evaluation procedure, and other observations.

In a September 2016 inspection of the firm’s Naples, Fla., facility, the FDA observed that Isolux’s internal audit procedures did not ensure all applicable quality system requirements were reviewed.

In addition, quality audits were conducted by individuals with no direct responsibility for the matters being audited, corrective actions were not taken when necessary, and audit reports were not reviewed by management having responsibility for the matters audited.

Moreover, the company had not conducted any internal audits. The FDA noted this was a repeat observation from another Form 483 issued in January 2010.

The FDA also said Isolux did not implement one of its supplier evaluation procedures. Specifically, it failed to document the evaluation of most of its current suppliers and contractors on file, and there was no documentation that its suppliers and contractors had agreed to notify the company of changes in products or services.

The Form 483 also noted that the firm had not developed adequate written reporting procedures. For example, the existing procedures did not include definitions of medical device reportable events, electronic reporting requirements and instructions, or a reporting time frame of five business days when requested in writing by the FDA.

Inspectors also faulted the company’s design change procedures for not including validation or verification requirements, its complaint handling procedures for improper documentation, its servicing procedures for not requiring that serviced devices conformed to specifications, and its inadequate training procedures.

A spokesperson for Isolux declined to comment.

Cleanrooms are complicated. Product selection, rotating disinfectants, applying disinfectants and controlling bioburdens and residues are all part of the job. Order the webinar CD/Transcript Industry Trends and Best Practices for the Cleanroom Environment today and learn the necessary components to be compliant with FDA, EMA and MHRA regulations and guidances.

View today's stories

Devices Inspections and Audits

    Upcoming Events

    • 05Dec

      Thriving in Clinical Research – Overcoming Common Challenges as a Site: Part 3 – Site Resourcing

    • 07Dec

      Proactive Supplier Management Using Quality Agreements

    • 13Dec

      FDA Inspection Overhaul: How Things Have Changed in 2023

    • 14Apr

      MAGI 2024: The Clinical Research Conference

    Featured Products

    • FDA, FTC and DOJ Enforcement of Medical Device Regulations

      FDA, FTC and DOJ Enforcement of Medical Device Regulations

    • Using Real-World Evidence in Drug and Device Submissions

      Using Real-World Evidence in Drug and Device Submissions

    Featured Stories

    • T-cell Malignancy From CAR-T Cell Immunotherapies Gets FDA Investigation

    • Vivos Sleep Apnea Oral Device Gets FDA Nod While Philips Wrestles With Yet Another CPAP Safety Issue

    • Novo Nordisk Battles Wegovy/Ozempic Pretenders and Faces Mounjaro’s Superior Study Results

    • Social, Emotional Risks Associated With Multi-Cancer Screening Discussed by Adcomm

    The Revised ICH E8: A Guide to New Clinical Trial Requirements

    Learn More
    • Drug Products
      • Quality
      • Regulatory Affairs
      • GMPs
      • Inspections and Audits
      • Postmarket Safety
      • Submissions and Approvals
      • Research and Development
      • Commercial Operations
    • Device Products
      • Quality
      • Regulatory Affairs
      • QSR
      • Inspections and Audits
      • Postmarket Safety
      • Submissions and Approvals
      • Research and Development
      • Commercial Operations
    • Clinical Products
      • Trial Design
      • Data Integrity
      • GCP
      • Inspections and Audits
      • Transparency
    • Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell or Share My Data
    Footer Logo

    300 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Falls Church, VA 22046, USA

    Phone 703.538.7600 – Toll free 888.838.5578

    Copyright © 2023. All Rights Reserved. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing