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 – Data Tokenization
RWE 101 - 4 Potential Uses for Improving Drug Development Real world evidence (RWE) refers to data collected outside the context of traditional clinical trials, such as [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Primary Data versus Secondary Data
RWE 101 - Primary Data versus Secondary Data Primary data and secondary data are two types of data used in research. The main difference between the two [...]
RWE 101 – Secondary Use of Existing Data
RWE 101 - Secondary Use of Existing Data Secondary use of existing data refers to the practice of analyzing data that was collected for a different purpose [...]
RWE 101 – Why is there so much excitement about the use of AI in the context of real world evidence?
RWE 101 - Why is there so much excitement about the use of AI in the context of real world evidence? The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) [...]
RWE 101 – What is the Difference Between an IRB and a REC?
RWE 101 - What is the Difference Between an IRB and a REC? An Institutional Review Board (IRB) and a Research Ethics Committee (REC) are two different [...]
RWE 101 – Do I Need IRB Approval for My Observational Study?
RWE 101 - Do I Need IRB Approval for My Observational Study? In general, observational studies that involve human subjects require Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval to [...]







