Complaint Files

Stanley Liu

Consumer Safety Officer

Premarket Programs Branch

Division of Industry and Consumer Education

Office of Communication and Education

Center for Devices and Radiological Health

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Complaint Files – Why Are They 

Important?

• Premarket 

o Often the focus

• Postmarket

o Often neglected

o Opportunity for improvement – Complaint Files

• “Learn from Mistakes”

• Product longevity

• Increased market share

• Better, safer, more effective product

2 
Learning Objectives

1. Understand context of complaint files within:

• Overall Quality System and

• Corrective and Preventive Action (CAPA) subsystem

2. Learn about the mechanisms of complaint files and continual 

postmarket role

3. Understand the contribution that complaint files have 

toward product quality and safety

3 
What is the CAPA Subsystem?

• One of the 7 Quality System subsystems

• Corrective and Preventive Action (CAPA) Subsystem

4 

Parts of CAPA Subsystem Regulation Number

(21 CFR)

General

Applicability

Nonconforming Product 820.90 Manufacturing

Corrective and Preventive 

Action

829.100 Manufacturing and 

After Distribution

Complaint Files 820.198 After Distribution
Complaint Files - Overview

21 CFR 820.198

a) General Requirement

b) Initial Review and Evaluation

c) Investigation of Failures

d) Medical Device Reporting

e) Records

f) Off-Site Accessibility

g) Outside U.S. Accessibility

5 
Complaint – Definition

21 CFR 820.3(b)

Any written, electronic, or oral communication that 

alleges deficiencies related to the identity, quality, 

durability, reliability, safety, effectiveness, or 

performance of a device after it is released for 

distribution

6 
General Requirement

21 CFR 820.198(a)

Establish and Maintain procedures for receiving, 

reviewing, and evaluating complaints by a Formally

Designated Unit to ensure:

o Processing in uniform and timely manner

o Documentation of oral complaints upon receipt 

o Evaluation to determine if failure investigation and/or a 

medical device report (MDR) is required

7 
What to do With Servicing* Reports

• Train Servicers to identify possible complaints

o Formally designated unit then reviews these possible complaints

• Have Formally Designated Unit review all Servicing 

reports/records for complaints

* Servicing (21 CFR 820.200) not discussed in this presentation beyond potential impact upon Complaint Files

8 
Initial Review and Evaluation

21 CFR 820.198(b) 

• Review and Evaluate complaints to determine whether an 

investigation is necessary.

• If determine that no Investigation is needed, document:

o Reason

o Name of responsible individual

9 
Investigation of Failures 

21 CFR 820.198(c)

• Any alleged complaint involving possible failure of a device or 

labeling/packaging to meet any of its specifications must be 

Reviewed, Evaluated, and Investigated. 

Exception – when an investigation has already been performed 

on a similar complaint

• Recurring similar complaints may not require investigation

under complaint file handling but may require CAPA.

10
Medical Device Reporting (MDR)

21 CFR 820.198(d) 

• Complaints that are also Medical Device Reports* (MDRs) must be 

promptly reviewed, evaluated, and investigated by designated 

individual(s).

• Maintain in a separate portion of the complaint files or be otherwise 

clearly identified.

• Keep additional records of investigation:

o Whether device failed to meet specifications

o Whether device was used for treatment/diagnosis

o Relationship, if any, of device to reported incident/adverse event

*See 21 CFR 803 for details on MDRs

11
How Does It All Fit Together?

Manufacturing After Distribution

Nonconforming 

Product

(820.90)

Corrective and 

Preventive Action 

(820.100)

Complaint Files

(820.198)

Medical

Device Reporting

(803)

12
Investigation – Why?

• All medical devices will eventually have a failure or MDR- reportable event.

• May impact everything from design to manufacturing.

• Robust system ensures responses/reactions are:

o Accurate

o Appropriate

o Timely 

• Result is a better, safer and more effective product.

13
Investigation – Why No Specifics? 

• Multitude of variables:

o Heterogeneous nature of devices and complaints

o Risk

o Severity

o Frequency 

o Other factors (e.g., conditions, context, etc.)

• A set of prescriptive requirements governing all possible variables and 

situations is not feasible

• Regulation is flexible 

14
Investigation – Details

(Think of It This Way)

• Regulation is not vague – FDA has given manufacturers freedom 

to define their own circumstances

• Manufacturers must understand their own product, risks, 

conditions and context for its use, and apply the Regulatory 

Requirements to make their Complaint Files System work

• Result: Manufacturers must decide upon their own details

15
Manufacturer Responsibilities - Details

• Definitions

o Failure (device, labeling/packaging)

o Medical Device Report

o Other (“non complaints”)

• Actions

o Investigate (“investigable”)

o Other (“non complaints,” “similar” complaint)

• Investigation Thresholds

o Handle within Complaint Files System

o Refer to Corrective and Prevent Action Subsystem

16
Thresholds – Complaint Files

Handle corrections under Complaint Files if they meet some 

general criteria (with corresponding examples):

o Easy/specific correction

o Isolated incident

o Minor issue

o Not design issue/does not impact design

o Not Manufacturing issue/does not impact Manufacturing

17
Complaint Files – Easy/Specific Correction

• Device was mishandled during shipping and is dented 

or scratched.

18
 Complaint Files – Isolated Incident

• Minor malfunction occurred when it was used once 

outside the intended/indicated uses in an 

unanticipated way.

19
Complaint Files – Minor Issue

• A part became loose or unattached, but was not 

damaged.

20
Complaint Files – Not Design Issue

• Device plastic casing cracked when accidently dropped.

21
Complaint Files – Not Manufacturing Issue

• Instruction Manual stuck to device and was lost during 

unpacking.

22
Thresholds – CAPA

Complaints should be referred to CAPA if they meet some general 

criteria (with corresponding examples):

o No easy/specific correction

o Recurring (based on valid analytical method)

o Severe

o Design issue/may impact design

o Manufacturing issue/may impact Manufacturing

23
CAPA – No easy/specific correction

• Device has a report of a short battery life. 

24
CAPA – Recurring 

• A large number of devices were dented or scratched 

over time.

25
CAPA – Severe

• Device caught on fire or exploded.

26
CAPA – Design Issue

• Use in a high electromagnetic (EM) area caused 

frequent, specific malfunctions

27
CAPA – Manufacturing Issue

• Mold was found inside packaging

28
Thresholds – Balance is Key

• Too many failures handled under Complaints may fail

to address systemic issues.

o Generally simple, specific, contained issues

• Too many complaints referred to CAPA will overwhelm

the system. 

o Generally more complex, ambiguous, systemic issues

29
Investigations – How Do They Work?

Complaint Files

Medical Device 

Reports

Corrective and 

Preventive Action

Complaint Evaluation Other

Investigation

Close

Failure

30
Records

21 CFR 820.198(e)

Records of investigations must be maintained: 

o Device name

o Date complaint received

o Unique Device Identifier (UDI), Universal Product Code (UPC), and other device 

identification(s) (e.g., control/batch/lot number(s))

o Name, address, and phone number of complainant 

o Nature/details of the complaint

o Results and dates of investigation

o Corrective action taken 

o Reply/response to complainant

31
Off-Site and Outside U.S. Accessibility

21 CFR 820.198(f) and (g)

• When designated complaint unit is located off-site and/or 

outside of the U.S., records must be reasonably accessible in 

the U.S. at: 

o Location in U.S. where the records are regularly maintained

o Location of the initial distributor (e.g., Importer)

• Must comply with all other Quality System requirements (e.g., 

Records, 21 CFR 820 Subpart M).

32
QS Regulation and Guidance

• Quality System Regulation and Preamble

www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=820&showFR=1

www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/PostmarketRequirements/QualitySystemsRegulati

ons/ucm230127.htm

• Inspection Guide - Complaint Handling System

www.fda.gov/iceci/inspections/inspectionguides/ucm114876.htm

• Guide to Inspections of Quality Systems [Quality System 

Inspection Technique (QSIT)]

www.fda.gov/iceci/inspections/inspectionguides/ucm074883.htm

33
Call to Action

1. Use your Complaint File system to “Learn from mistakes” 

– they can impact:

o Quality

o Design

o Manufacturing

2. Complaint Files are a gateway mechanism for CAPA and 

Postmarket activities

3. A robust complaint file system can improve Quality and 

Safety

34
Industry Education:

Three Resources for You

1. CDRH Learn: Multi-Media Industry Education

 over 125 modules

 videos, audio recordings, power point presentations, software-based “how to” modules

 mobile-friendly: access CDRH Learn on your portable devices

www.fda.gov/Training/CDRHLearn

2. Device Advice: Text-Based Education

 comprehensive regulatory information on premarket and postmarket topics

www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceAdvice

3. Division of Industry and Consumer Education (DICE)

 Contact DICE if you have a question

 Email: DICE@fda.hhs.gov

 Phone: 1(800) 638-2041 or (301) 796-7100 (Hours: 9 am-12:30 pm; 1 pm-4:30pm EST)

 Web: www.fda.gov/DICE 35
36