A spare part , spare , service part , repair part , or replacement part , is an interchangeable part that is kept in an inventory and used for the repair or replacement of failed units. Spare parts are an important feature of logistics engineering and supply chain management , often comprising dedicated spare parts management systems. Capital spares are spare parts which, although acknowledged to have a long life or a small chance of failure , would cause a long shutdown of equipment because it would take a long time to get a replacement for them. Spare parts are an outgrowth of the industrial development of interchangeable parts and mass production.
Dear readers! Our articles talk about typical ways to solve the issue of renting industrial premises, but each case is unique.
If you want to know how to solve your particular problem, please contact the online consultant form on the right or call the numbers on the website. It is fast and free!
Cannibalization (parts)VIDEO ON THE TOPIC: Move your medical devices with Integrated Logistics Services - Cardinal Health
The quality system regulation includes requirements related to the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, designing, manufacturing, packaging, labeling, storing, installing, and servicing of medical devices intended for human use.
This action is necessary to add preproduction design controls and to achieve consistency with quality system requirements worldwide. This regulation sets forth the framework for device manufacturers to follow and gives them greater flexibility in achieving quality requirements. For more information on compliance with 21 CFR Written comments on the information collection requirements should be submitted by December 6, All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Background Manufacturers establish and follow quality systems to help ensure that their products consistently meet applicable requirements and specifications. Under section f of the act, FDA issued a final rule in the Federal Register of July 21, 43 FR 31 , prescribing CGMP requirements for the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for the manufacture, packing, storage, and installation of medical devices.
This regulation became effective on December 18, , and is codified under part Except for editorial changes to update organizational references in the regulation and revisions to the list of critical devices that was included in the preamble to the final regulation, the device CGMP requirements have not been revised since This final rule is the result of an extensive effort begun in to revise this regulation. This change in law was based on findings that a significant proportion of device recalls were attributed to faulty design of product.
FDA found that approximately 44 percent of the quality problems that led to voluntary recall actions during this 6-year period were attributed to errors or deficiencies that were designed into particular devices and may have been prevented by adequate design controls. These design-related defects involved both noncritical devices e. With respect to software used to operate medical devices, the data were even more striking. A subsequent study of software-related recalls for the period of fiscal year FY through FY indicated that over 90 percent of all software- related device failures were due to design-related errors, generally, the failure to validate software prior to routine production Ref.
Because this regulation must apply to so many different types of devices, the regulation does not prescribe in detail how a manufacturer must produce a specific device. Rather, the regulation provides the framework that all manufacturers must follow by requiring that manufacturers develop and follow procedures and fill in the details that are appropriate to a given device according to the current state-of-the-art manufacturing for that specific device.
FDA has made changes to the proposed regulation and the Working Draft, as the final rule evidences, to provide manufacturers with even greater flexibility in achieving the quality requirements. The Supreme Court recently addressed the preemptive effect, under section of the act 21 U. In Medtronic, Inc. Lohr, S. See Lohr at Under the Supreme Court's analysis in Lohr, the requirements imposed by the original CGMP regulation would rarely have preemptive effect.
FDA believes that the reasoning of Medtronic v. Lohr applies equally to the new quality system regulation, which, as does the original CGMP regulation, prescribes requirements that apply to medical devices in general, rather than to any particular medical device.
Therefore, FDA has concurrently amended part 21 CFR part to make clear the new quality system regulation does not preempt State tort and common law remedies. ISO and EN are written as voluntary standards, but when used to fulfill the requirements of the European Medical Device Directives, or other national regulations, these standards are mandatory requirements similar to the CGMP requirements.
The GHTF submitted comments, however, noting where FDA could more closely harmonize to achieve consistency with quality system requirements worldwide. The original period for comment on the proposal closed on February 22, , and was extended until April 4, Because of the heavy volume of comments and the desire to increase public participation in the development of the quality system regulation, FDA decided to publish the notice of availability in the Federal Register to allow comment on the Working Draft before issuing a final regulation.
The Working Draft represented the agency's views at the time on how it would respond to the many comments received, and on how the agency believed a final rule should be framed. FDA solicited public comment on the Working Draft until October 23, , to determine if the agency had adequately addressed the many comments received and whether the agency had framed a final rule that achieved the public health goals to be gained from implementation of quality systems in the most efficient manner.
The public meeting consisted of prepared presentations followed by an open discussion period. Both the agency and the participants found the meeting to be very productive in focusing attention on the few main areas of concern in the Working Draft. The main issues were: The application of the regulation to component manufacturers; the application of the regulation to third party servicers and refurbishers; and the implementation timeframe of the final rule.
A notice of the meeting was published in the Federal Register of August 24, FDA made a brief presentation to the committee on the changes from the proposal to the Working Draft and discussed some changes that FDA was recommending as a result of the August meeting. The remainder of the meeting consisted of prepared [Page ] presentations from the public and the committee's discussion on the main issues.
The overwhelming majority of the committee members believed that the Working Draft met the public health needs, gave manufacturers sufficient flexibility to comply with the regulation, and met the agency's goal of harmonizing the quality system requirements with those of other countries.
The GMP Advisory Committee strongly supported FDA's recommendation, in response to the August public meeting, to not include component manufacturers under this final rule. However, the GMP Advisory Committee was clearly divided on several issues related to the proposed regulation of third party servicers and refurbishers.
A transcript of the proceedings of the GMP Advisory Committee meeting, as well as data and information submitted to FDA during the meeting, are available from the Dockets Management Branch address above.
A summary of changes from the July Working Draft to the final rule is contained at the end of this preamble. Implementation of the Final Rule FDA has decided, in response to the many comments and concerns expressed about the need for more time to implement design controls, to implement the final rule in two stages.
Under stage one, on June 1, , approximately 1 year after this rule is published in the Federal Register, all elements of the final rule become effective. However, with respect to the design control requirements in Sec. Under stage two, beginning June 1, , FDA will treat noncompliance with design control requirements in Sec. To prepare for stage one of this implementation plan, FDA intends to develop, by April of , a strategy for inspecting the design control requirements. Both industry and FDA field investigators will then be trained on this inspectional strategy for design controls during April and May Starting June 1, , manufacturers will be inspected for compliance with all the new quality system requirements, including design controls, in the manner described in the inspectional strategy.
However, as part of the transition program, from June 1, , for a period of 1 year, although FDA will inspect firms for compliance with the design control requirements, the field will issue any observations to the manufacturer on a separate design control inspectional strategy report, not on FDA Form The design control inspectional strategy report will be made a part of the manufacturer's establishment inspection report EIR , but the observations relating to Sec.
FDA notes that it can, at any time, take action against unsafe or adulterated medical devices under different regulatory or statutory authorities. FDA wants to emphasize that manufacturers are required to take reasonable steps to come into compliance with the design control requirements during the June 1, , to June 1, , period.
FDA also emphasizes that this transition period relates only to the design control requirements of Sec. The time period from June 1, , to June 1, , is intended to allow both the industry and FDA field investigators time to become familiar with the design control requirements and the enforcement aspects of this new area.
Finally, as described elsewhere in this preamble, FDA intends to conduct a midcourse review of the new design control requirements during the transition year June to June Specifically, the results of the first several months of design control inspections will be reviewed by early FDA will review all of the completed design control inspectional strategy reports that were given to manufacturers from between June 1, , through December 1, The completed strategy reports will be reviewed with particular attention paid to clarity of information obtained, the appropriateness of the information collected with respect to the design control requirements, the appropriateness of the questions on the inspectional strategy, the manner in which the investigators are writing out their observations, and any requirements that seem to be giving manufacturers a problem or where there might be misunderstandings as to what the regulation requires.
FDA will then hold an open public meeting in early to discuss with industry these findings and to further explore any concerns industry might be having in implementing the new design control requirements.
Any midcourse adjustments to the inspectional strategy will be instituted and made public by the spring of Also during this midcourse review, FDA will evaluate the information gathered at that point and determine if the design control requirements as written in this final rule are appropriate to obtain the goals expressed in this preamble.
FDA will consider minor or even major changes, based on experience to date. Any necessary adjustments or proposed revisions will be published in the Federal Register and comments will be solicited as necessary during the spring of This implementation strategy is responsive to requests by industry for FDA to harmonize the quality system regulation's implementation with the mandatory date for implementation of the EU's Medical Device Directive, which is June Response to Comments and Rationale for Changes Approximately separate individuals or groups commented on the proposal published in the Federal Register of November 23, , and approximately separate individuals or groups commented on the Working Draft that was announced in a notice of availability published in the Federal Register on July 24, FDA made many changes in response to the comments.
Most of the changes were made in response to specific comments, in response to comments for clarity, understanding, and readability, or to further harmonize FDA requirements with international standards, as many comments requested.
Numerous comments stated that industry was very pleased with FDA's [Page ] Working Draft and the effort that was made to harmonize with ISO, as well as to engage industry in commenting on the Working Draft through the open public meeting and the GMP Advisory Committee meeting that were held in August and September , respectively.
FDA's responses to the comments received on the proposal and the Working Draft, as well as explanations for the changes made, follow. General Provisions Subpart A i. Scope Sec. This revision follows the suggestion underlying many comments on specific provisions that FDA generally harmonize the CGMP requirements and terminology with international standards.
In addition, this title accurately describes the sum of the requirements, which now include the CGMP requirements for design, purchasing, and servicing controls.
CGMP requirements now cover a full quality system. FDA notes that the principles embodied in this quality system regulation have been accepted worldwide as a means of ensuring that acceptable products are produced. While the regulation has been harmonized with the medical device requirements in Europe, Australia, and Japan, as well as the requirements proposed by Canada, it is anticipated that other countries will adopt similar requirements in the near future.
First, there were complications in dealing with the issue of copyrights and, second, FDA along with health agencies of other governments does not believe that for medical devices ISO alone is sufficient to adequately protect the public health.
Through the many years of experience enforcing and evaluating compliance with the original CGMP regulation, FDA has found that it is necessary to clearly spell out its expectations. This difference in approach does not represent any fundamentally different requirements that would hinder global harmonization. Several comments suggested that Sec. The quality system regulation provides a framework of basic requirements for each manufacturer to use in establishing a quality system appropriate to the devices designed and manufactured and the manufacturing processes employed.
Manufacturers must adopt current and effective methods and procedures for each device they design and manufacture to comply with and implement the basic requirements. The regulation provides the flexibility necessary to allow manufacturers to adopt advances in technology, as well as new manufacturing and quality system procedures, as they become available. During inspections, FDA will assess whether a manufacturer has established procedures and followed requirements that are appropriate to a given device under the current state-of-the-art manufacturing for that specific device.
FDA investigators receive extensive training to ensure uniform interpretation and application of the regulation to the medical device industry. Thus, the agency does not believe that FDA investigators will cite deviations from requirements not contained in this part.
However, as noted above, FDA has altered the language of the scope to make clear that additional, unstated requirements do not exist.
A few comments suggested eliminating the distinction between critical and noncritical devices, thus eliminating the need for distinct requirements for critical devices. Other comments disagreed, asserting that eliminating the distinction would increase the cost of production of low-risk devices without improving their safety and effectiveness.
However, FDA has retained the concept of distinguishing between devices for the traceability requirements in Sec. As addressed in the discussion under that section, FDA believes that it is imperative that manufacturers be able to trace, by control number, any device, or where appropriate component of a device, that is intended for surgical implant into the body or to support or sustain life whose failure to perform when properly used in accordance with instructions for use provided in the labeling can be reasonably expected to result in a significant injury to the user.
The deletion of the terminology will bring the regulation in closer harmony with ISO and the quality system standards or requirements of other countries. In fact the new regulation is less prescriptive and gives the manufacturer the flexibility to determine the controls that are necessary commensurate with risk. The burden is on the manufacturer, however, to describe the types and degree of controls and how those controls were decided upon.
Such determinations are made in accordance with standard operating procedures SOP's established by the manufacturer. The wording is the same as that used in the drug CGMP.
The quality system regulation includes requirements related to the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, designing, manufacturing, packaging, labeling, storing, installing, and servicing of medical devices intended for human use. This action is necessary to add preproduction design controls and to achieve consistency with quality system requirements worldwide. This regulation sets forth the framework for device manufacturers to follow and gives them greater flexibility in achieving quality requirements. For more information on compliance with 21 CFR Written comments on the information collection requirements should be submitted by December 6, All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Account Options Sign in. Dictionary of Occupational Titles: Occupational classification and industry index. United States Employment Service. Selected pages Title Page. Table of Contents. Contents Alphabetic Arrangement of Divisions and Groups. Occupational Group Arrangement of Titles and Codes.
Spare Parts Management for Medical Devices
In locating and identifying assets for its customer base, SRK Solutions does not always have the benefit of time to plan the acquisition of new equipment that meets the timeline of its clientele. Read More. As a result, SRK Solutions managed to sell these machines at a lower price than market rate. With GoIndustry DoveBid, we find second-hand equipment that meets our specifications from around the world. We have a dedicated project manager with experience in auctions to support us through the entire buying process. Any concerns that bidding would be stressful quickly went away. After purchasing, GoIndustry DoveBid helps us to coordinate the escrow, shipping and third parties.
Heavy machinery, especially Mining, Industrial or Farming Equipment, requires constant maintenance to keep it in good working order. Conversely, poorly maintained large machinery equipment runs inefficiently. Breakdowns are costly and safety is also an important consideration. Many types of large machinery have multiple operators. One of the ongoing inspections on any checklist should be overseeing the correct operation of the equipment. Large machinery should be inspected as soon as it is purchased. Operator training is usually done at that point, but training needs to be kept up. Employees come and go, skills become rusty and poor operation leads to breakdowns. Operator manuals can be revised for the specific work situation. They can be rewritten in simpler language.
Not a MyNAP member yet? Register for a free account to start saving and receiving special member only perks. Competitive quality, cost, service, and delivery have always been fundamental requirements of suppliers.
Nova Biomedical is a world leader in the development and manufacturing of advanced technology blood testing analyzers and diagnostic products. As the largest privately held in vitro diagnostic company in the U. Nova also has , square feet of development and manufacturing space in facilities in Waltham and Billerica, Massachusetts; and Taipei, Taiwan. Nova uses Manufacturing Engineering as the key constant in all projects. Manufacturing Engineering is assigned to the product development project on day one and stays with the project for the life of the product. There is no handoff from development to manufacturing. There is no redesign for manufacturing effectiveness. There is a seamless transition that is managed by Manufacturing Engineering, which ensures that the product is reliable and cost-effective in manufacturing design. Nova appoints a dedicated development and manufacturing team to your project.
Scott Used Equipment
Scott Used Equipment. Rental Rates. Tulloss Equipment Company, Inc. Technical Equipment is a key distributor of advanced machine tool technology and related engineering and support services in Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky. All these terms mean the same type of open-circuit equipment. Scott Bodies and Hoists is pleased to announce the roll out of our new product offering. The best value means that we offer the highest quality refurbished, patient-ready equipment with a one year repair or replace warranty and an ISO certified service operation.
5 Maintenance Tips to Extend Equipment Life and ROI
Cannibalization of machine parts, in maintenance of mechanical or electronic systems with interchangeable parts , refers to the practice of removing parts or subsystems necessary for repair from another similar device, rather than from inventory , usually when resources become limited. The source system is usually crippled as a result, if only temporarily, in order to allow the recipient device to function properly again. Cannibalization is usually due to unavailability of spare parts , due to an emergency, long resupply times, physical distance, or insufficient planning or budget. Cannibalization can also be due to surplus inventory. At the end of World War II a large quantity of high quality, but unusable war surplus equipment such as radar devices made a ready source of parts to build radio equipment. Sometimes, removing parts from old equipment is the only way to obtain spare parts, either because they are no longer made, are obsolete, or can only be manufactured in large quantities. This is often the case in the military, and ships and aircraft , as well as other expensive equipment that is produced in limited quantities. Such was the case with the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk , the sole survivor of a class of three ships built during the earlys. The ship herself is over forty years old, and having manufacturers build individual custom replacement parts would be highly impractical, and thus decommissioned ships, such as the USS Independence , have been utilized for the necessary parts to keep the Kitty Hawk in operation.
What Companies Are In The Automotive Sector?
Dear colleagues, partners and friends. In this highly productive period, we have managed to build a reputable trading and manufacturing company that is recognised and respected in many European, Asian and African countries. GmbH is proud to offer our partners assistance in many areas, including the complex equipment of medical institutions, the manufacture of medical equipment under the DIXION trademark, the design and construction of healthcare and other social infrastructure facilities,the selection and recruitment of personnel and staff training.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Return to footnote a S. A medical device that transmits or withdraws energy or a substance to or from a patient without substantially altering the energy or the substance is not an active device.
Please include device brand, model, serial number and contact person details in your order. If available, please also attach a picture of the part in question.