To sign up for this Zoom conversation click here. This Zoom Conversation is being hosted by Rob Packard of Medical Device Academy.

Learn about some of the major changes from the IEC 60601 Amendments coming during this Zoom conversation. Read the below infographic to get an understanding of which standards are being updated, when the updates are estimated, how long the proposed transition period is, what are some of the concerns to consider, and what ways can we help you prepare and train your staff up for these changes.

One of the first questions clients ask before a project starts is, “Does this medical electrical product fall under IEC 60601-1?” Another common question clients ask is whether IEC 60601-1 applies to battery operated medical devices. To answer these questions, we must review and understand the scope (sub-clause 1.1) of IEC 60601-1 to determine if and how the IEC 60601-1 Standard applies to a medical electrical product.

This blog discusses the following points:

• Definitions
• Examples within Scope of IEC 60601-1:2005
• Examples not within Scope of IEC 60601-1:2005
• IEC 60601 & ISO 13485
• Third-Party Testing

Last summer Amendment 1 (A1) came out and if you haven’t yet you should start learning about those changes as they will be impacting you sooner rather than later (sign-up for an FX Conferences recording of my recent presentation on A1 of IEC 60601-1 and its’ impact on users, follow the instructions to get a $50.00 discount, and sign up for the presentation titled “IEC 60601–1, 3rd Edition, Amendment 1 and its Impact on Users”) and also A1 can help you as it will reduce the amount of Risk Management File work you need to do for a product safety certification or approval. There are about 25 less Risk Management File requirements when using A1 vs using 3^rd ed.  To understand the differences and changes of A1 it is highly recommended that you get the IEC 60601-1 edition 3.1 (consolidated) edition as that shows you where all the changes are to the text vs 3^rd ed.  Note, when you submit for testing thru a test lab you will either want to use either edition 3.1 or 3^rd ed. but you can’t mix and match as that would not work well and any CB scheme certified lab, among most other labs, will not mix and match requirements as it gets messy quickly.

So, what are the current changes to the standards related to alignment with 3^rd ed. & the new Interpretation Sheet?  Let’s start with the standards.

The updates are actually withdrawal of two standards that have been embedded into 3^rd ed. when it was released (i.e. IEC 60601-1-1, 2^nd edition – Medical Electrical Systems & IEC 60601-1-4 Programmable Electrical Medical Systems) and so the 2^nd ed. aligned standards needed to be withdrawn as 2^nd edition of IEC 60601-1 has been withdrawn since the publication of 3^rd edition back at the end of 2005.  The withdrawal report to IEC for IEC 60601-1-1, Edition 2.0 (now in IEC 60601-1, 3rd ed. in clause 16) covered the following 3 points, and it is the same circumstances for IEC 60601-1-4, edition 1.1 (1^st ed. + A1) (now in IEC 60601-1, 3rd ed. in clause 14):

• IEC 60601-1 Ed. 2.2 (IEC 60601-1:1988+A1:1991+A2:1995) was withdrawn in 2005, yet those who want to use it have been able to do so for the past seven years.
• IEC 60601-1 Ed. 2.2 makes normative reference to a number of supporting standards that have been revised or superseded, yet users have been able to find the versions they need to implement Edition 2.2.
• With the changes made in Amendment 1 to IEC 60601-1:2005, there are substantive technical differences between this collateral standard and its respective clause in IEC 60601-1 Ed. 3.1. Therefore, this document can no longer be considered to represent the generally accepted state of the art.

Let’s move onto the Interpretation Sheet 3 (or IS3) for IEC 60601-1 3^rd edition and also for edition 3.1 or 3^rd edition + A1.  It is the 3^rd interpretation sheet issued since IEC 60601-1, 3^rd edition has been issued.  IS3 is a clarification of the requirement for sub-clause 13.1.2, 4^th dashed line which the sub-clause is titled “Emissions, deformation of ENCLOSURE or exceeding maximum Temperature”.  The requirement of concern is:

“The following HAZARDOUS SITUATIONS shall not occur;”

“- ….”
“-     temperatures of ME EQUIPMENT parts that are not APPLIED PARTS but are likely to be touched, exceeding the allowable values in Table 23 when measured and adjusted as described in 11.1.3;”  (This is the fourth dashed line of 13.1.2)

So, this requirement is saying that this situation should not occur (following HAZARDOUS SITUATIONS) if there is a part that isn’t an APPLIED PART (An APPLIED PART is a part of the device that in NORMAL USE necessarily comes into physical contact with the PATIENT for the device to perform its function.  So, a part other than an APPLIED PART) that is likely to be touched that exceeds the temperature limits of Table 23 (Allowable max temperatures for ME EQUIPMENT parts that are likely to be touched) in the temperature test method described in sub-clause 11.3.

The IS3 gives an alternative route to meeting the above requirement by stating the following:

“This is clarified by the following:

The above requirement is regarded as fulfilled in accordance with Subclause 4.5 for temperatures at the surfaces of the enclosure, if the following conditions are fulfilled:

− The maximum allowed temperature on OPERATOR accessible surfaces in SINGLE FAULT CONDITION is 105 °C; and

− the instructions for use contain a warning that, under some SINGLE FAULT CONDITIONS, the temperature of: (indicate the surface of concern) could get hot and there is a possible RISK of a burn if touched, and

− if the RISK ANALYSIS demonstrates a need for a warning symbol on the ENCLOSURE, safety sign ISO 7010-W018 ( ) shall be used on or adjacent to the hot spot on the ENCLOSURE; and

− the RISK ASSESSMENT demonstrates that the temperature attained in the SINGLE FAULT CONDITION is acceptable, and

− the RISK ASSESSMENT demonstrates that applying the alternative RISK CONTROL measures in this Interpretation Sheet results in a RESIDUAL RISK that is comparable to the RESIDUAL RISK resulting from applying the requirement of the standard.

NOTE 1 This Interpretation Sheet is intended to be used with both Edition 3.0 and Edition 3.1 of IEC 60601-1.

NOTE 2 An example of an analysis that demonstrates an adequately low probability of occurrence of HARM is shown below.”

To access this IS3 for free please go to the IEC website link.

If you need assistance with this or other issues, please contact us 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