Essential Performance (EP) initially came into the IEC 60601 series of standards when the 3rd edition of IEC 60601-1:2005 was published. The definition was quite confusing and many manufacturers, regulators and test houses had a hard time with it and how to apply it properly. In 3rd edition (2005) + amendment 1 (2012) some clarification came into play which made it easier to understand but there is still a fair amount of confusion.

About 2 years ago a test lab did some research and brought up the issue that a significant number of test reports (a high percentage of them) of critical devices didn’t define essential performance appropriately to the Sub Committee SC62A on “Common aspects of electrical equipment used in medical practice”. From this research, an ad-hoc group was formed to come up with a solution.

The initial solution was to come up with this Interpretation Sheet (ISH) to explain Essential Performance (clause 4.3 which is not as clear as the ISH but for those that know the standard have been doing it this way for years) and Single Fault Condition (SFC) (clause 4.7) that is related to Essential Performance. Access a copy thru the IEC website if you know where to find it or the easier route is to download it here. Note, this document doesn’t cover all the issues about Essential Performance as it is a complex situation but it does help explain some of the issues involved. The ISH per IEC requirements is limited to 2 pages of written text of explanation allowed by IEC requirements and so has a constraint on how detailed it can get. It is good for explaining the concept for the General standard IEC 60601-1, edition 3.1 which covers also ed. 3.2 (no change there). The General standard concept is based on limits but for some Particular standards (IEC 60601-2-XX or IEC/ISO80601-2-XX), limits don’t work for all products applicable (not all display-based product that the clinical function is based on the display function for example). But the ISH doesn’t really get into the details of how EP deals with Particular standards much (covered a little in the ISH) so that really needs to be looked at further still.

So, what is the next step? This ad-hoc group with the help of some additional people in the standards development community (I hope to be in this group) will start in the next couple of months (probably after the IEC TC 62 General meeting of April 12 – 23, 2021) to work on a guidance document to provide further guidance on EP as I still find that many regulators around the world, test labs, and manufacturers all have varying understanding of what EP & SFC are.

This varying understanding has a huge impact on projects as if say the test lab asks the manufacturer what their EP is, the manufacturer may say I don’t have any, the test lab will check the test report form (TRF) as none. When gets to say FDA the first thing FDA would ask is why is there no EP on the device? If found out there is EP the client would have to retest under the applicable IEC 60601-1, Particular (60601-2-XX/80601-2-XX) and Collateral Standards (60601-1-XX) + the EM Disturbances standard IEC 60601-1-2 which would add cost and time delays to a project.

Need help with Essential Performance. Feel free to schedule a call with Leo www.EisnerSafety.com/Schedule-Call/ or contact Leo at Leo@EisnerSafety.com.

On October 1, 2011 the DRAFT “FAQ related to Implementation of EN 60601-1:2006 Clarification of open issues” was issued and this DRAFT document is being sent to NB-MED for commenting on the document.  NB-MED is also known as TEAM NB.  This organization is the European Association of Notified Bodies for Medical Devices which covers the MDD (93/42/EEC), AIMDD (90/385/EEC), and IVDD (98/79/EC).  This group publishes guidances that are agreed on by the Medical Device Directives (93/42/EEC, 90/385/EEC, and 98/79/EC) Notified Bodies. Once all the responses are agreed to it is anticipated that the document will be released as an NB-MED guidance document.

The History of this DRAFT document is restated below.  Note that any “click here” links are not live in the below text but are live in the actual DRAFT document.

History

During spring 2011, it was realized that the use of EN 60601-1 and its many family members in demonstrating compliance with the relevant and applicable requirements of the European medical device regulatory framework was not too trivial. While relevant guidance on the matter had been published at the CENELEC website as a Q&A document (click here), some Notified Bodies were giving advice that was felt to be not in line with that guidance. On other occasions, questions were raised that were not covered in the guidance.

So, it was concluded that the situation for electrical equipment in medical practice was not totally clear and that additional guidance would be useful. Further contact with the chair of the NB-MED confirmed this desirability, and a small group of experts was established. This group developed an enquiry asking for “practical issues in the implementation”, that was sent to many stakeholders in June 2011(see Annex 1). Also at the international level of IEC the request was distributed (62A/769/INF).

The response to the request was beyond expectation and the small team of experts, initially consisting of three, was expanded with Dr. Klaus Neuder of DKE (Frankfurt, Germany).

End of July 2011, the work on digesting the issues submitted until then started and it took until end of September 2011 until all material had been thoroughly discussed and answers formulated to the questions that were raised. In some cases, the questions were slightly amended to make them a little more general, and a few additional “connecting” questions were developed by the team.

It is believed that the answers, developed in close team cooperation, present a fair response to the issues brought forward and that they can be used as a reference for all stakeholders.

Now it is time for the NB-MED to scrutinize the proposed responses and see if they are also acceptable to all members of NB-MED. The NB-MED comments are kindly awaited by the end of October 2011, at the same e-mail address that was used for the initial submission of the issues: 60601Ed3.NBMED.issues@gmail.com, using the form supplied together with this document.

Happy reading!

The 60601-1 Issues Team:

Dr. Wolfgang Leetz, Dr. Peter Linders Dr. Klaus Neuder Mr. Martin Schneeberg

I would like to also thank Martin Schneeberg & Peter Linders for allowing me to share this with all my clients and website visitors.

Implementation of EN IEC 60601-1 3rd edition

Request for Issues

on the use of the standard for CE-conformity purposes

When the transition period was defined for EN IEC 60601-1:2006 (replacing the 1988 version with its two amendments), several questions arose. These questions were included in a FAQ document that was posted at the CENELEC web site (click here) to give all users the same interpretation[1]: (click here).

The transition period, after which only the 2006 edition will be giving presumption of conformity with the relevant Essential Requirements of the Medical Device Directive (93/42/EC), is now well underway. As an increasing number of manufacturers are implementing this version of the standard, more questions come up. In particular this is the case in conversations between manufacturers and involved authorities or Notified Bodies considering CE-conformity purposes.

In an attempt to support these discussions, and to harmonize responses, we are looking for specific matters that have arisen and that may have wider relevance. Together with regulatory experts, we will seek answers to those matters that reflect a consensus opinion of the Medical Notified Bodies. Clearly, this is not a request for technical matters, e.g., for required test conditions, but rather unclear situation. A few examples of such matters are given in the annex.

If you know of such matters, or even have experienced some yourselves, please share these. If you have reached agreement on these matters or you have proposals for the same, and wish to share: these are also very welcome. As indicated, the matters will be compiled and given to experts for sound advice, followed by scrutiny from NB-MED experts, resulting in the best available recommendations for the matters indicated. This advice will be made publicly available.

Please submit your contributions to: 60601Ed3.NBMED.issues@gmail.com. Note that not all contributions may receive individual responses. We will start work with material submitted by 30 June 2011, yet contributions after that date remain welcome. We expect first results by 30 September.

Thank you for your consideration and valuable contributions.

Martin Schneeberg (TÜV SÜD PRODUCT SERVICE, member of UK 811.1, IEC TC62A, WG14, MT28, A1PMT, IECEE RM TF)

Wolfgang Leetz (Siemens AG, Healthcare Sector, chair of DKE Division 8 (electro medical equipment, electro acoustic, ultrasound, laser), chair of COCIR Standardization Policy Focus Group)

Peter Linders (Philips Healthcare, chair of CENELEC TC 62, chair of COCIR Technical and Regulatory Affairs Committee, member of IEC/TC 62 CAG, A1PMT)

Annex – Examples of questions sought

Q1. Valid EC Design-Examination certificate period vs. DOCOPOCOSS: 2012-06-01:
Example: Suppose an MDD class IIB or III electrical medical equipment was placed on the EEA in 2009. It has a signed EC Design-Examination Certificate by a NB based on 2Ed EN 60601-1, valid until 2014-01-01 (five years).

Question: Is this product affected by the DOCOPOCOSS related to EN 60601-1:1990 (+ am1 + am2), June 1st 2012? Keep in mind that a valid EC certificate has been issued by a NB which is valid 5 years up to 2014.

Q2. Future totally new particular standards:
For a specific MEE does not exist a specific particular standard related to 2Ed EN 60601-1. However, for this specific MEE a totally new particular standard related to the 3Ed EN 60601-1:2006 is work in progress. This question is relevant at least for:
– 60601-2-63: for dental extra-oral x-ray equipment,
– 60601-2-64: light ion accelerators,
– 60601-2-65: for dental intra-oral x-ray equipment,
– 60601-2-66: hearing aids and hearing systems

Officially such MEE’s shall fulfil the complete 3Ed EN 60601-1:2006 plus the relevant particular standard 60601-2-XY at the date 2012-06-01, unless there is a specific transition period for the applicable particular standard. Usually no specific transition period for the totally new particular standards are defined in the OJ, therefore, 2012-06-01 will apply.

Is there any guidance beyond the general advice to discuss specific problems related to the application of these new standards with the NB and using Risk Management?

Can 3 years transition period for the EN 60601-2-XY be claimed starting from publishing the EN version of the particular standard?

Q3. Is ZLG paper 3.5 A1 legally binding for EU NB’s and MEE manufacturers:
The ZLG-paper 3.5 A1 addresses a valid concern extremely clear: “The missing new assessment by the manufacturer after the end of the “doc” or the missing knowledge about the existing of new harmonized standards or scientific knowhow are substantial NON-conformities. If these NON-conformities will not be adequate corrected, the certificates have to be suspended or withdrawn.”
Is this paper legally binding? Am I allowed to ignore it? In clear words: If the “doc” is over and I have not objective evidence about the new 3Ed EN 60601-1:2006 requirements in a point-by-point protocol format, is my NB forced to suspend or withdraw my CE-certificate?

[1] Collateral standards under the MDD & AIMD: CLC/TC 62 questions and answers on the EN 60601-series of standards in relation to the MDD and AIMD