<Software Title> – Software Validation Form
1. Information about the Software
| QMS ID | <ID> |
| Name | <Name> |
| Version | <x.x.x> |
| Location | <url> |
| Processes | <processes in which this tool is used> |
2. Intended Use and Use Context
Describe intended use and usage context (e.g. automation, testing, control, altering). Include technical and usage requirements that the system shall fulfill.
3. Quality Relevance
Rate these aspects with yes (y) or no (n). If any of these aspects are rated as yes, the system is quality relevant and should be validated.
| Criterion | Y/N |
|---|---|
| Is the system used in one or more processes that steer the QMS? | |
| Could the conformity of the organization’s medical devices be affected if the system does not work according to its specifications? | |
| Could risks arise for patients, users, third parties or the organization if the system does not work according to its specifications? | |
| Does the software generate or manage data / records that are relevant to the QMS or medical device approval by authorities? | |
| Is the software used to generate electronic signatures on documents or records required by the QMS and/or state authorities? |
4. General Assessment
4.1 Software Category
- Infrastructure software (e.g. operating systems, databases, office applications, antivirus, network management software) (GAMP category 1)
- Non-configurable software (GAMP category 3)
- Configurable software (GAMP category 4)
- Custom (self-developed) software (GAMP category 5)
4.2 Risk Assessment
List of Risks:
- <list of risks>
List of Risk Mitigation Measures (if necessary):
- <list possible risk mitigation measures>
4.3 Criticality and Review Schedule
Refer to section 10 for descriptions of the criticality classifications. If a software is not highly critical and widely adopted / commonly used, it can be continuously re-validated during use.
- Low (review upon major changes)
- Moderate (review every year)
- High (review every 6 months)
5. Validation Plan
5.1 Participants
| Role | Name | Task(s) |
|---|---|---|
5.2 Test Environment
- Software tool accessed with <Windows 10 20H2 on Google Chrome 88.0.4324.150>
- Reference User Manual
5.3 Testing Procedure
- Run software system on sample data
6. Validation Report and Requirements
6.1 Acceptance Criteria
The software is approved for use if it is validated successfully and works as expected.
6.2 Validation of Usage Requirements
| ID | Expected | Result | Pass? |
|---|---|---|---|
| U1 | e.g. “A radiologist can log in with their email and password.” | “Login with correct email and password grants access to the annotation tool.” | yes |
6.3 Validation of Technical Requirements
| ID | Expected | Result | Pass? |
|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | e.g. “Execute correctly in the specified runtime (Google Chrome).” | “The application runs correctly in Google Chrome.” | yes |
6.4 Summary of Validation
| Type | Total | Pass | Fail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Usage Requirements | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Technical Requirements | 1 | 1 | 0 |
6.5 Conclusion
Approving the software for use is recommended due to the acceptance criteria being fulfilled completely.
7. Proof of Validation
You can optionally insert screenshots for proof of validation. Strictly speaking, this is not a hard requirement by the standards but it’s nice to show when you’re being audited.
| U1 | <insert screenshot> |
| T1 | <insert screenshot> |
8. Approval and Release
| Date of Approval | Name of Approver |
|---|---|
| <date> | <name> |
9. History
| Date | Name | Activity |
|---|---|---|
| <Initial Approval> |
10. Annex: Additional Information for Criticality Classification
GAMP Implications
- GAMP 5 always leads to “high” software criticality
- GAMP 4 always leads to a “high” or “moderate” software criticality, depending on further risk assessment in step 4.2
- GAMP 1 and 3 typically leads to a “low” or “moderate” software criticality, depending on further risk assessment in step 4.2
Criticality High
- A software failure can lead to harm, requiring medical intervention
- Software manages information relevant for vigilance purposes (e.g. customer safety information or recall actions)
- Software manages information that is quality-relevant and its loss would lead to an audit nonconformity
Criticality Moderate
- A software failure can lead to harm, however, not requiring medical intervention
- Software manages information that is quality-relevant and its loss would lead to an audit nonconformity
Criticality Low
- Software manages information that is quality-relevant and its loss would lead to an audit nonconformity
Template Copyright openregulatory.com. See template license.
Please don’t remove this notice even if you’ve modified contents of this template.