See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/284000814

Reliability in the Medical Device Industry

Chapter · January 2008

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-84800-131-2_61

CITATIONS READS

28 14,295

2 authors, including:

Krishna B. Misra
RAMS Consultants
132 PUBLICATIONS 3,423 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Krishna B. Misra on 20 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

61

Reliability in Medical Device Industry

Vaishali Hegde
Respironics Inc. Sleep and Home Respiratory Central Facility
Monroeville, Pennsylvania, 15146, USA

Abstract: The medical industry is one of the fastest growing segments of US economy. Increasingly,
medical equipment is being used outside a controlled hospital environment. The complexity and increased
use of medical equipment in non-hospital environments has made the need for safe, reliable products
imperative. Although reliability engineering tools are well established, their application to the medical
industry is fairly new. This chapter discusses the reliability tools and standards applicable to the medical
equipment industry.

61.1 Introduction years. According to US Census Bureau’s

projections, by 2030, the older population in US is
The medical industry is one of the fastest growing projected to be double that of 2000, growing from
segments of US economy. In 2004, health care 35 million to 72 million. By 2050, they project the
spending in the US reached $1.9 trillion, and was older population to be around 86.7 million. In other
projected to reach $2.9 trillion in 2009 [1]. In 2004, words, nearly 1 in 5 Americans will be age 65 and
the US spent 16 percent of its gross domestic over in 2030 [3].
product (GDP) on healthcare. It is projected to rise In 2000, about 92 percent of people aged 65
to 20% in the next decade. United States is not the and over had made at least one health care visit to a
only country in the world spending large sums of doctor’s office, an emergency room, or a hospital
money on health care. Countries all over the world during the past year (NCHS, 2003a). Among
are spending more and more on health care every people 65 and older, the number of health care
year. According to the Organization for Economic visits increased with age.
Cooperation and Development, health care Chronic diseases have caused most elderly
spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in deaths throughout the last 50 years. Diseases of
Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent heart, malignant neoplasms (cancer),
in Canada and 9.5 percent in France [2]. cerebrovascular diseases (stroke), chronic
Health care spending is increasing all over the obstructive pulmonary diseases/chronic lower
world due to increased life expectancy and respiratory diseases and pneumonia and influenza
consequently the increased aging population. were the top 5 causes of death for people aged 65
Reduction in mortality during the 20th century led and over, in year 2000 [3]. Treatment of these
to large increases in life expectancy. By 2000, life chronic diseases requires several different types of
expectancy in the US was approximately 76.9 medical devices. All data mentioned above, points
982 Vaishali Hegde

to an explosive growth in the medical device and devastating for a medical device manufacturer.
medical services market in the world. Since December 13, 1984, the FDA Medical
When it comes to medical equipment, failure is Device Reporting (MDR) regulations have required
not an option. From critical devices such as oxygen firms who have received complaints of device
concentrators, lasers, ventilators, MRI scanners, malfunctions, serious injuries or deaths associated
insulin pumps, implantable pacemakers to with medical devices to notify FDA of the incident.
instruments as straightforward as stethoscopes, The MDR regulation provides a mechanism for
injections, and thermometers; medical equipment FDA, manufacturers, importers and user facilities
must be reliable. The medical industry must have to identify and monitor significant adverse events
higher reliability standards than other fields. involving medical devices. The goals of the
However, a high reliability standard is hard to regulation are to detect and correct problems in a
maintain in today’s environment of intense global timely manner. MedWatch, the FDA’s safety
competition, pressure for shorter product-cycle information and adverse event reporting program is
times, stringent cost constraints, higher customer set up for health professionals and consumers to
expectations for quality and reliability and complex report serious adverse reactions and problems
global and heterogeneous markets. related to drugs, medical devices, cosmetics etc.
Medical electronic products are increasingly MedWatch plays a critical role in FDA’s post
being used in non-hospital environments by non- marketing surveillance – the process of following
clinical personnel. This is because sophisticated the safety profile of medical products after they’ve
medical products are becoming more compact and begun to be used by consumers. The FDA
portable. For example, a few years ago, an oxygen publishes a weekly FDA Enforcement Report that
concentrator weighed 75 pounds, had to be plugged contains all enforcement actions including recalls,
into the wall for power, and had to be used in a field corrections, seizures and injunctions. This
controlled clinical environment. Today, a portable report is published on the internet at
oxygen concentrator weighs only 8 pounds, can http://www.fda.gov/opacom/Enforce.html. It also
operate on batteries and can be used in a home maintains MAUDE (Manufacturer and User
environment. Developing and producing a medical Facility Device Experience database) which
electronic product reliable enough to continuously contains reports of adverse events involving
repeat certain key functions over and over again medical devices.
like clockwork and alarming appropriately in case Depending on the severity of MDR or
of a fault condition, is now more important than MedWatch report filed, a defective medical device
ever before. may have to be recalled. A recall is a method of
Today, reliability takes on even greater removing or correcting products that are in
significance since medical devices designed for violation of laws administered by the Food and
specific applications are becoming more expensive. Drug Administration (FDA). Filing an MDR or
It is not uncommon for cancer treatment or surgery recalling a medical device takes a significant
equipment to cost a few million dollars. While amount of time, effort and resources on the part of
hospitals may be relatively profitable, they cannot the manufacturer. It can have a negative impact on
afford to have too many of these expensive a device manufacturers’ reputation in the
products. If one such medical system incurs marketplace. It may lead to product liability
downtime due to failure, it can adversely affect the lawsuits, particularly in the US. All this could
hospital’s bottom line, its reputation and the well- consequently lead to an adverse impact on sales
being of its patients [4]. In some cases, medical and profits.
electronics products in use for several years require Low reliability can have a significant impact on
updating to increase their reliability as greater service, repair, and warranty costs as well. In fact,
healthcare demands are placed on them. warranty cost is inversely proportional to the
The financial impact of having an unreliable or reliability of a medical device. Hence, more and
unsafe medical product in the market can be more manufacturers are willing to invest in
 Reliability in Medical Device Industry 983

reliability related tasks to try and reap the benefits Amendments to this act in 1976 empowered the
in terms of warranty costs. A 5% increase in FDA to regulate medical devices during their
reliability focused development costs will return a design and development phases. The Safe Medical
10% reduction in warranty costs. A 20% increase Device Act passed in 1990, authorized the FDA to
in reliability focused development costs will implement the Preproduction Quality Assurance
typically reduce warranty costs by half and a 50% Program. This program requires medical device
increase in reliability focused development costs manufacturers to address deficiencies that lead to
will reduce warranty cost by a factor of 5 [5]. failure during design. Nowadays, similar types of
regulations concerning medical devices are being
followed in other countries. For example, the
61.2 Government (FDA) Control Medical Device Directive (MDD) of the European
Union (EU) outlines the requirements for medical
As the use of medical devices for critical life devices in the EU countries.
supporting functions increases, governments
around the world are regulating their design,
manufacture, quality, reliability, proper use and 61.3 Medical Device Classification
disposal. The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) is the U.S. Government agency that The FDA has established three regulatory classes
oversees most medical products, foods and for medical equipment based on the level of control
cosmetics. Within FDA, the Center for Devices and necessary to assure the safety and effectiveness of
Radiological Health (CDRH) oversees the safety the device. The class to which a device is assigned
and effectiveness of medical devices and radiation- determines, among other things, the type of
emitting products. premarketing submission / application required for
The FDA is responsible for protecting the FDA clearance to market.
public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and Device classification is risk based, that is, the
security of human and veterinary drugs, biological risk the device poses to the patient and/or the user
products, medical devices, the nation’s food is a major factor in the class it is assigned. All
supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. classes of devices are subject to General Controls
The FDA is also responsible for advancing the which are the baseline requirements of the Food,
public health by helping to speed innovations that Drug and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act.
make medicines and foods safer, and more The three classes and the requirements which
affordable, and helping the public get the accurate, apply to them are:
science based information they need to use
medicines and foods to improve their health. • Class I - General Controls
Products regulated by FDA include all foods Class I devices are subject to the least regulatory
except meat and poultry, prescription and non- control. They present minimal potential for harm to
prescription drugs, blood products, vaccines and the user and are often simpler in design than Class
tissue transplantation, medical devices and II or Class III devices. Class I devices are subject
radiological products, including cellular phones, to "General Controls" as are Class II and Class III
animal drug and feed, and cosmetics. In addition to devices. Examples of Class I devices include
setting product standards, FDA regulates the elastic bandages, examination gloves, and hand-
labeling of products under its jurisdiction. This held surgical instruments.
information must be valid, well documented, and • Class II - General Controls and Special
not misleading. FDA plays a major role in Controls
protecting consumers and the public health. Class II devices are those for which general
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of controls alone are insufficient to assure safety and
1938 authorized the FDA to take formal or effectiveness, and existing methods are available to
informal regulatory measures against the provide such assurances. In addition to complying
misbranding or adulteration of medical devices. with general controls, Class II devices are also
984 Vaishali Hegde

subject to special controls. Special controls may gap analyses to develop a reliability program and
include special labeling requirements, mandatory integration plan.
performance standards and postmarket In the design phase, one can use reliability
surveillance. Examples of Class II devices include modeling and predictions, derating
powered wheelchairs, infusion pumps, and surgical analysis/component selection, worst case circuit
drapes. analysis, thermal analysis, electromagnetic
• Class III - General Controls and Premarket analysis, design of experiments, risk management /
Approval FMECAs, fault tree analysis, human factors
Class III is the most stringent regulatory category analysis and software reliability analysis to
for devices. Class III devices are those for which increase reliability of a product.
insufficient information exists to assure safety and In the prototype phase, one can perform highly
effectiveness solely through general or special accelerated life testing (HALT), design verification
controls. Premarket approval by FDA, is required testing (DVT), and reliability demonstration testing
for this class of devices. Premarket approval is the (RDT).
required process of scientific review to ensure the In the manufacturing phase, the reliability tools
safety and effectiveness of Class III devices. that can be used are highly accelerated stress
Class III devices are usually those that support screening (HASS), on-going reliability testing,
or sustain human life, are of substantial importance FRACAS/CAPA system setup, and end-of-life
in preventing impairment of human health, or assessment.
which present a potential, unreasonable risk of
illness or injury. 61.4.1 Concept Phase
The reliability activities that need to be
performed during the life cycle of a product, 61.4.1.1 Benchmarking
depends to some degree on the classification of the
Benchmarking is the process of comparing the
product. Class III devices need maximum analyses
current project, methods, or processes with the best
and testing because they support or sustain human
practices in the industry. Benchmarking is crucial
life.
to both a startup company as well as an established
company that is coming out with a new product to
61.4 Reliability Program assure the new product is competitive based on
reliability and cost. For example, company A, a
Reliability engineering tools are well established new entrant into the medical manufacturing
however their application to the medical industry is market, wants to start selling a new type of dialysis
fairly new. The first step in launching a safe and pump. Company A should check the warranty
reliable medical product is a good reliability information, annual service plan and recommended
program. What are the hallmarks of a good maintenance schedule of leading competitor
reliability program? Developing realistic reliability products to try and benchmark their dialysis pump
goals early, planning an implementation strategy with respect to MTBF, failure rate, service interval
and then executing the strategy are all key features etc. against competitor pumps.
of a good reliability program. 61.4.1.2 Gap Analysis
The four phases of a reliability program are [6]
• Concept Phase Gap Analysis compares your current capabilities
• Design Phase with what is expected of your product in the
• Prototype Phase industry. Before performing a gap analysis you
have to set a reliability goal and perform a review
• Manufacturing Phase
of your current capabilities. Gap = Goals - Current
Several different reliability tools are available for
Capabilities. For example, a ventilator
use in the four phases of a reliability program. In
manufacturer currently has a ventilator on the
the concept phase, one can use benchmarking and
market that has a field reliability of 0.988. It is now
 Reliability in Medical Device Industry 985

planning to add oxygen blending feature to this material and components should be considered as
ventilator. They would like the new ventilator to well, while making component selections.
have a reliability goal of 0.9999 to meet customer
61.4.2.3 Worst Case Circuit Analysis
expectation. The process of determining the current
capability (0.988), the goal (0.9999), and the gap Worst case circuit analysis (WCCA) is an analysis
(0.9999-0.988 = 0.0119) is called gap analysis. technique which, by accounting for component
The output of this phase is the reliability variability, determines circuit performance under a
program. The program generally quantifies out of worst case scenario, i.e., under extreme
box failure rate, reliability within warranty period, environmental or operating conditions. The output
and reliability throughout life of the product. It also of a WCCA allows an assessment of actual applied
defines a schedule of the different activities that part stresses against rated part parameters, which
will be performed to achieve your reliability goal. can help ensure the application of sufficient part
stress derating to meet design requirements. One of
61.4.2 Design Phase the most critical steps involved in completing a
meaningful WCCA is the development of a part
61.4.2.1 Reliability Modeling and Predictions characteristic database. This database should
contain a composite of information necessary for
A reliability prediction is a method of calculating
quantifying sources of component parameter
the reliability of a product by assigning a failure
variation. Once these sources have been identified,
rate to each individual component and then
the database can be used to calculate worst case
summing all of the failure rates. Standards such as
component drift for critical parameters.
MIL-HDBK-217, Bellcore, PRISM, CNET, HRD5
etc can be used for reliability predictions. A 61.4.2.4 Thermal Analysis
reliability model presents a clear picture of
Temperature is one of the important variables that
functional interdependencies and provides the
impacts system reliability. Therefore, the thermal
framework for developing quantitative product
design of a system must be planned and evaluated
level reliability estimates to guide design trade-off
carefully. Thermal Analysis techniques can be used
process. Models are helpful for identification of
to evaluate the circuit board, casing, and junction
single points of failure, making numerical
temperatures and check for components that
allocations, evaluating complex redundant
exceed their temperature limits. The analysis can
configurations, and showing all series-parallel
also be used to identify the hot spots and
relationships.
components on the board that designers may
61.4.2.2 Derating Analysis / Component Selection modify by various means to eliminate thermal
problems. Typical solutions are adding heat sinks,
In MIL-STD-721 derating is defined as using an
thermal pads, and thermal vias, using thicker
item in such a way that applied stresses are below
ground or power planes, local conduction pads,
rated values. Limitation of electrical, mechanical
thermal screws, changing of radiation emissivity by
and environmental stresses is critical to high
coatings, or relocating components.
reliability. One common rule of thumb used in
electronics is that 50% derating can decrease the 61.4.2.5 Electromagnetic Analysis
failure rate by 30%. Telcordia SR332 (Reliability
Electromagnetic compatibility, or EMC means that
Prediction Procedure for Electronic Equipment)
a device is compatible with (i.e., no interference is
standard gives derating information. Component
caused by) its electromagnetic (EM) environment
selection must be based on the basis of derating
and it does not emit levels of EM energy that cause
analysis. Design engineers should select
electromagnetic interference (EMI) in other
appropriate component ratings to avoid
devices in the vicinity. A medical device can be
overstressing them. In case of implantable medical
vulnerable to EMI if the levels of EM energy in its
devices, biocompatibility and reliability of the
environment exceed the EM immunity (resistance)
986 Vaishali Hegde

to which the device was designed and tested. The level. There are several different types of FMEAs.
different forms of EM energy that can cause EMI For example, design FMEAs, process FMEAs,
are conducted, radiated, and electrostatic discharge functional FMEAs, system FMEAs etc. The basic
(ESD). EMI problems with medical devices can be approach for all the FMEAs is the same. A sample
very complex, not only from the technical section of a FMEA worksheet is given in Figure
standpoint but also from the view of public health 61.1.
issues and solutions. The Center for Devices and
Radiological Health (CDRH) encourages
manufacturers of electro-medical equipment to use 61.4.2.7 Fault Tree Analysis
the IEC 60601-1-2 standard, a widely recognized A fault tree analysis is a systematic, deductive
standard issued by the International methodology for defining a single specific
Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, undesirable event and determining all possible
Switzerland. The standard provides various limits reasons or failures that could cause that undesirable
on emissions and immunity. event to occur. The undesired event is the top event
61.4.2.6 FMECA in the fault tree and is generally a catastrophic or
complete failure of the product. Fault trees use
Failure modes, effects and criticality analysis concepts of logic gates to determine the overall
(FMECA) is a reliability evaluation and design reliability. In medical devices, patient harm is the
review technique that examines the potential most common undesired top event. The results of
Fig. 61.1: Sample Section of a FMEA Worksheet

failure modes within a system or lower indenture FTA can be used as a troubleshooting tool during
level, in order to determine the effects of failures service calls, after the product is available in the
on equipment or system performance. FMECA market. A sample section of a fault tree is given in
uses a “bottom up” approach. This approach begins Figure 61.2.
at the lowest level of the system hierarchy and
traces up through the system hierarchy to
determine the end effect on system performance.
The criticality portion of this method allows us to
place a numerical value or rating on the criticality
of the failure effect on the entire system or user.
After the initial analysis, one can prioritize the
failure modes, provide mitigations, reanalyze,
rescore and confirm that risks are at an acceptable
 Reliability in Medical Device Industry 987

rates [7]. The Mills model was developed by H.D.

Mills [8] by reasoning that an estimation of faults
remaining in software could be made through a
seeding process that assumes a homogeneous
distribution of a representative class of faults.
Before starting the seeding process, fault analysis
is performed to determine the expected types of
faults in the code and their relative frequency of
occurrence [7].

61.4.3 Prototype Phase

Testing is an important part of any product

Fig. 61.2: Sample Section of a Fault Tree
development cycle. It is performed to verify
performance, understand failure modes and
weaknesses of the product, benchmark your
61.4.2.8 Human Factors Analysis product against competitor products, determine
reliability and safety of the product, and study the
Human factors analysis should be performed with
impact of stress on performance of the product.
safety, manufacturing and maintainability in mind.
Reliability and safety testing is crucial in medical
Human beings are famous for not reading and
devices.
following instructions. Surrounding distractions is
Testing can be performed in two different
a major concern in the hospital environment.
modes: standard or accelerated. In standard mode,
Medical device manufacturers have to make sure
tests are performed in ambient temperature, at
that hospital staff is able to use the medical
typical operating stress conditions. In accelerated
equipment correctly and efficiently in spite of all
mode, parameters such as temperature, voltage,
the other surrounding hospital distractions. They
current, cycling, are increased well above their
also have to make sure that symbols used on their
normal levels to reduce test times.
medical devices meet standards approved by the
In the prototype phase, one can perform highly
FDA. AAMI (Association for the advancement of
accelerated life testing (HALT), design verification
medical instrumentation) has published a technical
testing (DVT), and reliability demonstration testing
information report on graphical symbols for
(RDT).
electrical equipment in medical practice.
61.4.3.1 HALT
61.4.2.9 Software Reliability Analysis
Highly Accelerated Life Testing is a quick and cost
Software is an important component of medical
effective tool used for discovering design issues
devices. A software life cycle can be divided into
and improving design margins. Thermal stress and
design, coding, and testing. If good practices are
vibration stress are the two main stresses applied
followed in all stages of the software life cycle a
during HALT. Generally a product is subjected to a
reliable software product will be ensured. The
cold thermal cycle, a hot thermal cycle, a fast
USAF Model and the Mills Model are two
thermal transition cycle, a vibration cycle, and a
software reliability models that are generally
combined thermal-vibration cycle. A root cause
considered useful for medical devices. The USAF
analysis is performed at the end of the test to
model was developed by the U.S. Air Force
determine the cause of failures. Design and
Laboratory in Rome, NY. to predict software
processing changes can be made based on HALT
reliability during the initial phases of the software
findings. A verification HALT can be performed to
life cycle. The model begins by developing the
ensure that problems are fixed and new problems
predictions of fault density and then transforming
have not been introduced. For example, during a
them into other reliability measures such as failure
988 Vaishali Hegde

HALT test, a ventilator with an operating range of 61.4.4.1 HASS

5C to 40C, provided incorrect therapy above 35C
Highly Accelerated Stress Screening is used to
and shut down at 65C. The root cause of failure
reduce out of box quality returns, decrease field
was determined to be the temperature rating of a
service and warranty costs, and detect and correct
proximal pressure flow sensor. The standard sensor
process defects. Typical failures that HASS will
was changed to an extended temperature range
find are soldering defects, bent IC leads, socket
sensor to solve the problem. On the same
failures, incorrect components or component
ventilator, the internal battery was disconnecting at
placement and programming errors. It is
very low vibration levels. The battery connector
recommended that a HALT be performed prior to
was changed to a positive latch, mini lock type
performing a HASS. HALT will help to identify
connector to prevent disengagement of the battery.
the operating and destructive limits of a product.
Both the sensor issue and the battery connector
This information is essential while developing a
issue would not have been discovered before
HASS process.
product release if HALT had not been performed.
61.4.4.2 ORT
61.4.3.2 DVT
On going reliability testing is performed to get an
Design Verification Testing is performed to verify
indication of the reliability of the product before it
product functionality. Generally, this testing is
is shipped to customers. In this test, a sample of
performed under normal operating conditions; no
product is taken off a production line and tested for
external stresses are applied. The results of design
a period of time, adding the cumulative test time to
verification testing are generally required during
ensure that the reliability target will be met. The
pre-market notification 510(k) submittal to the
samples are rotated on a periodic basis to get an
FDA.
on-going reliability. One must take care not to wear
61.4.3.3 RDT out any components because these units are
shippable units and you cannot risk taking
Reliability Demonstration Testing is used to
significant life out.
validate reliability prediction analyses and gather a
measure of confidence that the released product 61.4.4.3 FRACAS/CAPA system setup
will achieve a certain reliability target. In this test,
Failure reporting and corrective action systems
a sample of units is tested at slightly accelerated
(FRACAS) or Corrective and Preventive Action
stresses for several months. The stresses are higher
systems (CAPA) provide a framework for
than normal operating stress conditions but lower
controlling corrective action processes. At its core,
than HALT stress conditions. The stresses are held
FRACAS is a closed loop corrective action system
constant thus enabling you to calculate the
which enables you to collect failure data, analyze
acceleration factor for the test. MTBF (mean time
data and determine root cause, document the
between failures) can be obtained from test results.
corrective action and implement controls to prevent
This test is generally performed once before
the reoccurrence of the failure. An integral part of
product release.
CAPA is a Failure Review Board (FRB). The
Board is typically a cross-functional group
61.4.4 Manufacturing Phase
representing Quality, Reliability, Engineering,
Manufacturing, Regulatory and other departments
In the manufacturing phase, the reliability tools
depending on the nature of the business. The Board
that can be used are highly accelerated stress
is responsible for reviewing and approving
screening (HASS), on-going reliability testing,
recommended corrective actions and evaluating
FRACAS/CAPA system setup, and end-of-life
effectiveness of corrective actions after
assessment.
implementation. A FRACAS system is essential
for medical device manufacturers because of the
 Reliability in Medical Device Industry 989

FDA Medical Device Reporting (MDR) Test procedures are required for the proper
regulations. execution of the test plan. Test procedures must
address calibration and proofing the test
61.4.4.4 EOL Assessment
equipment. They must have a detailed description
End of Life assessment is performed to determine of the tools, parts, adjustments, hook ups,
when a product is starting to wear out, whether the datasheets, tools and materials required for the test.
preventive maintenance strategy is effective and The Reliability Toolkit provides a reliability test
whether the predictions performed during design procedure checklist that includes equipment
phase were accurate. EOL assessment uses the operation, on/off cycles, operation modes,
Weibull plotting technique to figure out where the exercising methods, performance verification
product is on the bathtub curve. Field failure data is procedure, failure event procedure, and
used to determine the number of days before adjustments and preventive maintenance schedule
failure. [11].
There are several different types of reliability
tests that can be performed over the life of the
61.5 Reliability Testing product cycle. Reliability Development/Growth
Tests (RD/GT), Reliability Qualification Tests
There are many different reasons for performing (RQT), Performance Tests, Screening Tests and
reliability testing. The main reasons are to induce Probability Ratio Sequential Tests (PRST).
failure modes as well as detect unanticipated
failure modes so corrective actions can be 61.5.1 Development / Growth Test
implemented, to determine if items or system meet
reliability requirements, to compare estimated This type of test is run to determine if there is a
failure rates to actual failure rates, to monitor need to change the design to achieve reliability
reliability growth over time, to determine the safety specification, or to verify improvements occurring
margin in a design, to estimate MTBF or MTTF in design reliability after changes have been made.
values, and to identify weaknesses in the design or These tests are generally run in the prototype or
parts [9]. development phase. Estimates of MTTF or MTBF
O’Connor states that reliability testing is a part can be obtained from these tests.
of an integrated test program involving statistical
testing, to optimize the design of the product and 61.5.2 Qualification Test
the production processes; functional testing, to
confirm the design; environmental testing, to The objective of this type of test is to determine if a
ensure that the product can operate under the design is acceptable for the intended function.
projected environments; reliability testing, to Qualification tests in many cases include aspects of
ensure that the product will operate for its expected vibration, shock, temperature cycling and other
life; and safety testing, to ensure safety of the environmental considerations the product will see
product for use by humans, animals or property in use.
[10].
Developing a test plan is the first step of an 61.5.3 Acceptance Test
integrated test program. The Reliability Toolkit
provides a test plan outline which includes the Acceptance testing is statistically derived to
following steps: define purpose and scope, list determine if an item is to be accepted or rejected
reference documents, define test item facilities, test for use, either individually or on a lot basis. This
requirements, test schedule, test conditions, test method of testing does not provide MTBF, MTTF
monitoring, test participation, failure definitions, or any other quantifiable measure.
test ground rules, and test documentation [11].
990 Vaishali Hegde

61.5.4 Performance Test 61.6 MTBF Calculation Methods in

Reliability Testing
Performance testing is conducted on completed
designs and normally manufactured items to verify MTBF (mean time between failures) is used
the reliability predictions and test results in the frequently to assess reliability of a medical
preproduction phase. This testing provides a product. There are five methods to estimate MTBF
benchmark for comparison of previous activities to in reliability testing [7].
see if they are effective in delivering a design that
• Time terminated, failed items replaced
meets reliability requirements.
• Time terminated, failed items not replaced
• Failure terminated, failed items replaced
61.5.5 Screening
• Failure terminated, failed items not
replaced
Screening tests are performed with the intent of
eliminating the infant mortality period. By • No failures
eliminating infant mortality period, the yield of All the methods assume exponential distribution
finished product is improved, and a higher (constant failure rate). Each method is described
reliability is achieved out in the field. below.

61.5.6 Sequential Testing 61.6.1 Time Terminated, Failed Items

Replaced
Sequential testing for products designed to operate
for some period of time is outlined in MIL-STD- In this method, testing is terminated at a
781. These tests called Probability Ratio Sequential preassigned time, and all failed items are replaced
Tests (PRST) are based on the ratio of an immediately after their individual failures. MTBF
acceptable MTBF which should have a high can be calculated using
probability of acceptance to an unacceptable MTBF = MTd n (61.1)
MTBF which should have a low probability of
acceptance. Items are placed on test, and failures
that occur are plotted against test time. A decision where Td is the test duration time, M is the number
is made based on the plotted point. The decision is of items placed on test and n is the total number of
one of three, accept the items as meeting the failures. One does not need to record the time to
required MTBF, reject the items as not meeting failure of each individual unit on test. For
acceptable MTBF, or continue testing. example, a medical device manufacturer places
Sequential test plans provide the least amount fifteen identical handheld oximeters on test, for
of time to make a decision when product is either 2400 hours. Six of the fifteen oximeters failed in
very good or very bad as compared to reliability the 2400 hour time period. All failed oximeters are
requirements. When the product is borderline, replaced as soon as they fail. An estimate of the
testing can be continued for an indeterminate MTBF of the tested oximeters can be given by:
period of time, which is an unacceptable situation.
To prevent the tests from continuing indefinitely MTBF = (15)(2400) 6
there are specific truncation points designed in ≡ 6000hours
these tests. The test will terminate at either a given
amount of failures or a predetermined test time, if a Therefore, the MTBF of the oximeters is 6000
decision has not been made. hours.
 Reliability in Medical Device Industry 991

61.6.2 Time Terminated, Failed Items not 61.6.4 Failure Terminated, Failed Items not
Replaced Replaced

In this method, testing is terminated at a In this method, testing is terminated at a

preassigned time, and the failed items are not predetermined number of failures, and the failed
replaced. MTBF can be calculated using items are not replaced. MTBF can be calculated
using
 n 
∑
MTBF =  Ti + ( M − n)Td } n
 i =1 
(61.2)  n
∑

MTBF =  Ti + ( M − n)Td } n (61.4)
 i =1 
where Ti is the time to failure, M is the number of
items placed on test; Td is the test duration time
where Ti is the time to failure, M is the number of
and n is the total number of failures. One needs to
items placed on test; Td is the test duration time
record the time to failure of each individual unit on
and n is the total number of failures.
test.
For example, a manufacturer started a test with
five identical defibrillators. Two of the five 61.6.5 No Failures Observed
defibrillators failed after 75 and 110 hours. The
failed defibrillators were not replaced. The test was In this method, MTBF cannot be calculated
terminated at a predetermined time of 500 hours. because no failures are observed. However, a lower
What is the MTBF of the tested defibrillators? one-sided confidence limit can be calculated to
state the minimum limit of the MTBF for a
MTBF = {(75 + 110 ) + (5 − 2 )(500 )} 2 specified confidence level.
≡ 842.5hours
LOCL = (2Tt ) χ α2 , m (61.5)
Therefore, the MTBF of the defibrillators is 842.5
hours.
61.7 Reliability related Standards and
61.6.3 Failure Terminated, Failed Items
Replaced Good Practices for Medical
Devices
In this method, testing is stopped at a
predetermined number of failures, and each failed Nowadays, compliance to certain safety, quality,
item is replaced. MTBF can be calculated using and usability standards is a pre-requisite to gaining
approval from FDA to market a medical device in
MTBF = MTd n (61.3) the USA. There are over 700 medical standards
available on different topics for different types of
where Td is the test duration time, M is the number
devices. Some standards directly or indirectly
of items placed on test and n is the total number of
related to medical device quality, reliability, safety,
failures. The equations for time terminated and
and usability are given in Table 61.1.
failure terminated are equivalent when failed items
are replaced.
992 Vaishali Hegde

Table 61.1. Reliability Standards

Standard Reference No. Standard Title / Description

ANSI/AAMI/ISO 14971:2000 Medical devices – Application of risk management to medical
and 14971:2000/A1:2003 devices
ANSI/AAMI ES1-1985 Safe current limits for electro medical apparatus
ASTM F1100 – 90 Standard Specification for Ventilators Intended for Use in Critical
Care
ASTM F1246 – 91 Standard Specifications for Electrically Powered Home Care
Ventilators, Part 1 – Positive Pressure Ventilators and Ventilator
Circuits
ASTM F1463 Specification for alarm signals in medical equipment used in
anesthesia and respiratory care
ASTM F0792 Guide for computer automation in the clinical laboratory
AAMI EOTP-2/85 Performance evaluation of ethylene oxide sterilizers – EO test packs,
good hospital practice
AAMI TIR 12:2004 Designing, testing, and labeling reusable medical devices for
reprocessing in health care facilities: A guide for medical device
manufacturers
AAMI TIR 32:2004 Medical device software risk management
AAMI HE-1988 Human factors engineering guidelines and preferred practices for the
design of medical devices
Guidance for the content of Pre-market Submissions for Software
Contained in Medical Devices Issued May 11, 2005 by CDRH
ISO 10651-6 Lung ventilators for medical use – Particular requirements for basic
safety and essential performance
ISO 10993-1 Biological evaluation of medical devices – Part 1: Evaluation and
testing
ISO 15001 Anesthetic and respiratory equipment – Compatibility with oxygen
ISO 8185:1997 Humidifiers for medical use – General requirements for
humidification systems
ISO 9000 series ISO 9000 series of quality standards
ISO 1348 Quality systems – medical devices – particular requirements for the
application of ISO9002
IEC 60601-1-1 Medical Electrical Equipment Part 1: General requirements for safety
– Collateral Standard: safety requirements for medical electrical
systems
IEC 60601-1-2 Medical Electrical Equipment Part 1: General requirements for safety
– Collateral Standard: electromagnetic compatibility.
IEC 60601-1-6 General requirements for safety – Collateral Standard: Usability
 Reliability in Medical Device Industry 993

Standard Reference No. Standard Title / Description

IEC 60601-1-8 General requirements for safety – Collateral Standard: General
requirements, tests and guidance for alarm systems in medical
electrical equipment and medical electrical systems
IEC 68-2-64 Environmental Testing Part 2:Test methods Test Fh: Vibration,
broad-band random (digital control) and guidance
IEC 1123 Reliability testing compliance test plans for success ratio
IEC 605 Equipment reliability testing
UL544 Standard for safety of medical and dental equipment
UL 2601-1 Medical Electrical Equipment, Part1: General Requirements for
Safety
MIL HDBK-338 Electronic reliability design handbook
MIL HDBK 217F Reliability prediction of electronic equipment
MIL-STD-1629A Procedures for performing a failure mode, effects and criticality
analysis
MIL HDBK-781 Reliability test methods, plans, and environments for engineering
development, qualification and production
MIL-STD-2155 Failure reporting, analysis and corrective action system (FRACAS)

References [5] Rand Corporation. The cost and benefits of

reliability in military equipment, 1988.
[1] Borger C, et al., Health spending projections [6] Schenkelberg F. Reliability integration 3-day
through 2015: Changes on the horizon. Health training course. Ops A La Carte LLC, Oct, 2004.
Affairs Web Exclusive W61 2006; :22February,S. [7] Dhillon BS. Medical device reliability and
[2] Pear R., US health care spending reaches all-time associated areas, CRC Press, 2000.
high: 15% of GDP. The New York Times 2004; [8] Mills HD. On the statistical validation of computer
January 9; 3. programs. IBM Federal Systems Division,
[3] Wan H, Sengupta M, Velkoff V, DeBarros K. 65+ Gaithersburg, MD, Report No. 72-6015, 1972.
in the United States: 2005. U.S. Census Bureau. [9] CRE Primer 1998, Quality Council of Indiana.
[online], 2005;1-70. Available: [10] O’Connor PDT. Practical reliability engineering.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p23- (3rd edition). John Wiley and Sons New York,
209.pdf 1996.
[4] Khan Z. Medical Electronic products call for [11] Systems reliability division. Rome Laboratory
higher reliability. ECN, 3/1/2005. Available Reliability Engineer’s Toolkit: New York. 1993;
http://www.ecnmag.com/article/CA508377.html April.

View publication stats