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 – Patient Retention
RWE 101 - Patient Retention Long-term Real-World Evidence (RWE) studies face significant challenges when it comes to patient retention, for several reasons:[1] Time Commitment: Participants in RWE studies are [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Patient Recruitment
RWE 101 - Patient Recruitment Real-world evidence (RWE) is health care information derived from real-world data (RWD). It can be generated through various study designs or analyses, including pragmatic [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – HARPER
RWE 101 - HARPER Regulatory agencies, health technology assessors, and payers are increasingly interested in studies that make use of real-world data to inform regulatory and other policy or [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – STaRT-RWE
RWE 101 - STaRT-RWE START-RWE (Structured Template for Planning and Reporting on the Implementation of Real World Evidence Studies) was developed to address the need for improved transparency and [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Protocol Design and ISPE GPP
RWE 101 - Protocol Design and ISPE GPP The International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) Guidelines for Good Pharmacoepidemiology Practices (GPP) are a set of best practices for the conduct [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Protocol Design and Scientific Best Practices
RWE 101 - Protocol Design and Scientific Best Practices Designing a robust Real-World Evidence (RWE) study is crucial for generating reliable and valid insights that are acceptable to regulators. [...]







