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 – Ethical Imperatives (CIOMS 2023)
RWE 101 - Ethical Imperatives (CIOMS 2023) Informed decision making with patients typically relies on evidence from clinical trials that describe the likely benefits and toxicities. However, patients treated [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Ethical Imperatives
RWE 101 - Ethical Imperatives Real-world evidence (RWE) refers to the clinical evidence regarding the usage and potential benefits or risks of a product derived from analysis of real-world [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – The Importance of Intent
RWE 101 - The Importance of Intent Real-world evidence (RWE) is the clinical evidence about the usage and potential benefits or risks of a product derived from the analysis [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Inspections
RWE 101 - Inspections Real-World Evidence (RWE) can include data from sources such as electronic health records (EHRs), insurance claims and billing activities, patient registries, patient-generated data, and data [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Audits
RWE 101 - Audits A quality assurance auditor in the context of a real-world evidence (RWE) study has several responsibilities, key among them ensuring that all facets of the [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Compliance Maps
RWE 101 - Compliance Maps In the context of multi-country Real-World Evidence (RWE) studies, "Regulatory Compliance Maps" are essentially a detailed representation of the diverse regulatory requirements specific to [...]







