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 ICH GCP Applicable to Non-Interventional Studies?
RWE 101 - Is ICH GCP Applicable to Non-Interventional Studies? No, the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines are not applicable to non-interventional studies [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Ethical Principles and Safeguards for Medical AI in the Context of Real World Evidence
RWE 101 - Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 - Ethical Principles and Safeguards for Medical AI in the Context of Real World Evidence Medical AI applications hold [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – The Declaration of Helsinki
RWE 101 - The Declaration of Helsinki The Declaration of Helsinki is a set of ethical principles that govern the conduct of medical research involving human subjects. [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Ethical Foundation of RWE Research
RWE 101 - Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 - Ethical Foundation of RWE Research Real-world evidence (RWE) research, which is the study of data from real-world settings, is [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – The Impact of GDPR on RWE Research
RWE 101 - Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 - The Impact of GDPR on RWE Research The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a regulation in EU [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – De-Identification versus Pseudo-Anonymisation
RWE 101 - Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 - De-Identification versus Pseudo-Anonymisation De-identification and pseudo-anonymization are two commonly used techniques for protecting personal information in real world [...]







