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 – Is ‘Retrospective Data’ the Same as ‘Secondary Use of Existing Data’?
RWE 101 - Is 'Retrospective Data' the Same as 'Secondary Use of Existing Data'? Retrospective data generally refers to data that has already been collected for another purpose [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – EHDS and GDPR – How does GDPR support the secondary use of existing health data for the purposes of scientific research?
RWE 101 - EHDS and GDPR - How does GDPR support the secondary use of existing health data for the purposes of scientific research? The GDPR (General Data [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Federated Clinical Data
RWE 101 - Federated Clinical Data Federated clinical data refers to clinical data that is distributed across multiple organizations or entities, such as hospitals, clinics, research institutions, [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – The European Health Data Space (EHDS)
RWE 101 - The European Health Data Space (EHDS) The European Health Data Space (EHDS) is a proposed initiative by the European Union to create a secure and [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – The Impact of the EMAs Data Quality Framework on RWE
RWE 101 - The Impact of the EMAs Data Quality Framework on RWE The EMA (European Medicines Agency) data quality framework provides a set of guidelines and principles [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – DARWIN-EU
RWE 101 - DARWIN-EU DARWIN-EU is a project that aims to establish a sustainable platform for generating and using real-world evidence (RWE) to support decision-making in healthcare [...]







