Blogs

MedTech

The ultimate guide to the EU MDR and IVDR general safety and performance requirements (GSPR)

By

Bethaney Lentz

May 9, 2022

4 min read

This article is an excerpt from The ultimate guide to the EU MDR and IVDR general safety and performance requirements (GSPR) ebook.

Table of contents

Overview

With the initial rollout of the European Medical Device Regulation (MDR) complete, medical device companies are shifting focus to the sister In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR) which has rolling effective dates starting in May 2022. Like the MDR, the IVDR also includes new General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPR). The expanded 2nd edition of this ebook includes a detailed summary of the IVDR GSPR regulations in addition to those of the MDR. It provides you with practical guidance on how to meet the GSPR requirements for all types of medical technology products. This ebook, however, should not take the place of reviewing the actual regulations and consulting regulatory experts when needed

Timeline

The EU MDR submission became mandatory from the previous MDD directive on May 26, 2021, and the EU IVDR effective date is quickly approaching. In fact, all submissions for new devices under the new EU IVDR must be implemented no later than May 25, 2022. Below is a high-level overview of key dates for both regulations.

*Note that the timeline for compliance was extended in 2021. Class D (high-risk) devices have until 2025 to comply with IVDR, while Class C devices have until 2026. Class B and Class A sterile devices have until 2027 to comply with IVDR.

Terminology

What’s the difference between Essential Requirements, General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPR), and Essential Principles. In order to have a meaningful dialogue, let’s first discuss the three (3) main terms used in the industry.

#1 Essential requirements

The ‘Essential Requirements’ is the backbone for establishing conformity with the Medical Device Directive (MDD 93/42/EEC) and the Active Implantable Medical Device Directive (AIMDD 90/385/EEC).  Detailed within Annex I of the MDD and AIMDD, the ‘Essential Requirements’ laid out the requirements that devices must meet in order to state compliance to the directives. With the implementation of the new EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR 2017/745), the ‘Essential Requirements’ will become superseded by the new EU MDR General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPRs).

#2 Essential principles

The IMDRF laid out Essential Principles requirements in a document entitled Essential Principles of Safety and Performance of Medical Devices and IVD Medical Devices. From a high-level perspective, three basic tenets make up these ‘Essential Principles’:

  • A device must be designed to be safe and perform effectively throughout its lifecycle.
  • Device manufacturers must maintain all design characteristics.
  • Devices must be used in a way that is consistent with how it was designed.

Many countries use the term ‘Essential Principles’ when compiling the documentation required to determine compliance to the law.  For instance, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) uses the term ‘Essential Principles Checklist’. Regardless of the term used, Essential Principles are of similar nature and overlap many of the Essential Requirements and new GSPRs.

#3 General safety and performance requirements (GSPR)

As of May 26, 2021, medical device manufacturers must start to comply with Annex I – General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPRs) of the new EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR 2017/745).  GSPRs are specific to the European MDR and IVDR. If you hear any other term (i.e. Essential Principles), it most likely means it is not referencing the European market.

EU MDR/IVDR Annex I

Annex I of the EU MDR and IVDR details the specific requirements of the General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPRs). The GSPRs are broken down into three (3) chapters in Annex I, MDR 2017/745 and IVDR 2017/746:

  • Chapter 1 - General requirements
  • Chapter 2 - Requirements regarding design and manufacture
  • Chapter 3 - Requirements regarding the information supplied with the device

Chapter 1 - General requirements

Both the EU MDR and the EU IVDR outline General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPRs) in great detail for medical device designers and manufacturers. The general requirements for each are almost identical and consist of the following:

  • Devices must perform in a way that aligns with the intended design.
  • They must not compromise the health or safety of a patient, user, or any other person associated with the device.
  • Risks must be reduced as much as possible, but not so much that they negatively affect the risk-benefit ratio.
  • Device manufacturers must implement and maintain a thorough, well-documented, and evaluative risk management system that continues to be updated throughout the life cycle of a device.
  • Manufacturers and designers must include any necessary measures for protecting users in cases where risks cannot be completely eliminated.
  • Manufacturers must provide users with information about any potential risks that remain. This information must be clear, easy to understand, and considerate of the users’ technical knowledge level, use environment, and any applicable medical conditions.
  • Devices must withstand the stresses of normal use for the duration of their lifecycle. Devices must be designed, manufactured, and packaged in a way that protects them from damage during transport and storage.
  • When it comes to risks and negative side effects that are known and foreseeable, designers and manufacturers must make every effort to minimize negative outcomes. They must also ensure that potential risks are acceptable when compared to the potential benefits of a device to its users.

Chapter 2 - Requirements regarding design and manufacture

The GSPRs also provide key details regarding specific information about the performance, design and manufacture of medical devices. As it relates to design inputs, the MDR and IVDR GSPRs provide highly detailed requirements relating to a device’s technical information. Further detail can be found in the comparison tables in Appendix A and Appendix B, where we have compared MDR to MDD and IVDR to IVDD.

Chapter 3 - Requirements regarding the information supplied with the device

The final key area of governance within the GSPRs relates to specific information a manufacturer must supply with a device. The general requirements for this information states that, “Each device shall be accompanied by the information needed to identify the device and its manufacturer, and by any safety and performance information relevant to the user, or any other person, as appropriate.” The requirements provide further detail as far as location - specific information that must be provided on the following:

  • The device label includes its UDI.
  • The user instructions.
  • The packaging of a device that is intended to maintain its sterile condition.

Medical devices are subject to significant regulations and a full understanding of EU MDR and/or IVDR labeling as defined in Annex 1 Chapter 3.

EU MDR/IVDR Annex II

In addition to the specific requirements identified within Annex I of the EU MDR and IVDR, Annex II, Technical Documentation, identifies additional requirements. Specifically, in both EU MDR and IVDR’s Section 4 – General Safety and Performance Requirements it states:

“the documentation shall contain information for the demonstration of conformity with the general safety and performance requirements set out in Annex I that are applicable to the device taking into account its intended purpose, and shall include a justification, validation and verification of the solutions adopted to meet those requirements. The demonstration of conformity shall include:

(a) the general safety and performance requirements that apply to the device and an explanation as to why others do not apply;

(b) the method or methods used to demonstrate conformity with each applicable general safety and performance requirement;

(c) the harmonised standards, CS or other solutions applied; and

(d) the precise identity of the controlled documents offering evidence of conformity with each harmonised standard, CS or other method applied to demonstrate conformity with the general safety and performance requirements. The information referred to under this point shall incorporate a cross reference to the location of such evidence within the full technical documentation and, if applicable, the summary technical documentation.”

Let’s break this down into each part.

Requirement

(a) the general safety and performance requirements that apply to the device and an explanation as to why others do not apply;

What needs to be documented for the requirements that apply or the requirements that do not apply?

Each and every section of the EU MDR GSPR or EU IVDR should be assessed in its own right as it pertains to your medical device. When a requirement applies, a simple statement may be made that this requirement applies to the device. In practice this is often achieved using a checklist or table, with a column for applicability and a Yes/No answer against each requirement. When a requirement applies, you can move on to the other parts of demonstrating conformity regarding methods used and standards applied.

When a requirement is not applicable, a statement must be made to that effect, i.e. a ‘No’ in the applicability column. Additionally, it must be fully and properly justified. Such a justification may be something like ‘The device is not powered and is therefore not an active device. This requirement does not apply.' The justification should clearly state why the requirement has been deemed not to apply so that your notified body can understand your reasoning

Requirement

(b) the method or methods used to demonstrate conformity with each applicable general safety and performance requirement;

What is meant by “method or methods used”?

This relates to the way you complied with that GSPR requirement, historically it would be listed as a standard or other documentation reference that you have applied to demonstrate compliance, however, the question of ‘method or methods used’ is new to the MDR and it is expected that a verbal description be provided such as:

i. Risk analysis weighed against clinical evaluation benefit
ii. Performance intended demonstrated by design requirements, verification and validation

Requirement

(c) the harmonized standards, common standards (CS) or other solutions applied;

What are harmonized standards, common specifications (CS), and “other solutions”?

Harmonized standards

These are standards that have been specifically developed and assessed for compliance to a regulation or directive. They are published in the Official Journal of the European Union (sometimes just referred to as ‘the OJ’) and if you comply with these standards then there is a ‘presumption of conformity’ with that directive or regulation to which they have been harmonized. These harmonized standards can only be created by a recognized European Standard Organization (such as CEN or CENELEC). When a standard is harmonized, an annex is added that describes how the standard conforms to the directive or regulation. When using harmonized standards, you should make sure that you understand how the standard conforms so that you do not claim compliance when the standard either does not meet that requirement or only partially meets that requirement.

If a standard does not meet a certain requirement of the directive or regulation, or indeed only partially meets it, then you must employ additional mechanisms for compliance. If a harmonized standard meets part of a directive or regulation, then by complying with that standard you also fully meet the corresponding requirement(s) The list of harmonized standards continues to grow - refer to the “Healthcare Engineering” section of the European Commission’s Harmonized Standards page for current information. In this case, using an MDD harmonized standard and documenting a justification for doing so (i.e. how you believe the standard demonstrates compliance with the GSPRs), should provide sufficient evidence

Common specifications

Common Specifications (CS) are a new concept in the MDR. They allow the European Union to add additional requirements that must be met in order to claim compliance where harmonized standards do not exist or where relevant standards are considered insufficient. The definition of a Common Specification is:

‘A set of technical and/or clinical requirements, other than a standard, that provides a means of complying with the legal obligations applicable to a device, process or system.’

Requirement

(d) the precise identity of the controlled documents offering evidence of conformity with each harmonized standard, CS or other method applied to demonstrate conformity with the general safety and performance requirements. The information referred to under this point shall incorporate a cross- reference to the location of such evidence within the full technical documentation and, if applicable, the summary technical documentation;

What is the expectation for incorporating a "cross-reference to the location of such evidence within the full technical documentation"?

This means that someone looking at the document should be able to identify exactly where in the technical documentation that the compliance evidence can be found. For example, this may refer to test reports and their exact location, or it could even reference locations within a large document, depending on the GSPR and your particular documentation. (i.e. if you have included usability risks as part of a larger risk assessment, you may need to say ‘See Technical File XXX, Section XX, Doc RMF001 rev 3 lines 65-78’). In other cases it could just mean the whole document reference, i.e. Have you done risk management? – then yes, it is RMF001 rev 3. What the specific reference actually is depends on how you have managed your technical documentation and how defined it is (i.e. separate reports or one big one). There should be no ambiguity as to where the document is located

An example of a completed GSPR checklist could look something like this (applicable and nonapplicable examples are shown):

GSPR Description Applicable? Methods Applied Standards & Solutions Evidence
7 Devices shall be designed, manufactured, and packaged in such a way that their characteristics and performance during their intended use are not adversely affected during transport and storage, for example, through fluctuations of temperature and humidity, taking account of the instructions and information provided by the manufacturer Yes Design considers packaging requirements. Packaged product has been verified through shipping and transit testing. Product was stored at extremes of temperature and humidity. EN ISO 13585 QMS
EN ISO 15223-1
Labelling
ISTA 2A Testing
Design procedure XXXXXX, rev XX located in document management system
QMS certificate XXXXXX
Package design drawings XXXXXX, rev XX located in document management system
Product label XXXXXXX, rev XX found in section XX of Tech File XX ISTA 2A test report title XXXXX, dated XX/XX/XX found in section XX of Tech File XX
Storage condition test report title XXXXX, dated XX/XX/XX found in section XX of Tech File XX
11.5 Devices labelled as sterile shall be processed, manufactured, packaged and sterilised by means of appropraite, validated methods. No N/A - This does not apply to this device (device id XXXXX) as it is not a sterile device and cannot be sterilised. N/A - This does not apply to this device (device id XXXXX) as it is not a sterile device and cannot be sterilised. N/A - This does not apply to this device (device id XXXXX) as it is not a sterile device and cannot be sterilised.

Proactive monitoring & maintenance

Specification developers and manufacturers must continually maintain their technical documentation to stay compliant. Part of this process is to ensure that they take into account the "generally acknowledged state of the art".

Proactive monitoring

'State of the art'

There is no formal definition of ‘state of the art’ within the EU MDR or IVDR, although it is mentioned many times. ‘State of the art’ is an ongoing debate; however, it generally means that it embodies what is currently and generally accepted as good practice in the medtech industry. The ‘state of the art’ does not necessarily imply the most technologically advanced solution.

One consensus on state of the art is being up to date and compliant with the current and in effect standards that are applicable to your device. This means that if a standard is updated that your medical device is compliant with, you must evaluate that update to ensure that it would meet the EU MDR or EU IVDR ‘state of the art’ requirement. This is not a new requirement from the EU MDD but it is spelled out more clearly in the EU MDR.

The specification developer or manufacturer is ultimately responsible for determining if the updated standard applies or does not apply to their device(s). Either way, the justification should be documented within a gap analysis.

Monitoring for changes

Of course, 'state of the art' only applies if you actually know if something changed. This is why you need to develop a process for monitoring the standards that compliance is claimed. Every single standard that is associated with your technical documentation must be actively monitored, reviewed, and reported on.

If you have a product on the market and need a better way to monitor and maintain your General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPR) or Essential Principles, Rimsys can help. Rimsys digitizes and automates GSPR and Essential Requirements so you can dynamically update and proactively monitor changing standards and evidence files.

When a standard or evidence file changes, you will automatically be notified and can update one GSPR or all of your GSPRs as applicable with a single click of a button. If additional information is needed, such as testing, it’s also invaluable to ensure that all devices are identified. What used to take weeks of manual, error-prone administrative tasks is now done in seconds within a fully validated, secure, maintenance-free, cloud-based solution

Maintenance

Maintaining and updating your technical documentation is generally the hardest part of staying compliant. Robust processes must be established to ensure nothing slips through the cracks and show up as nonconformances during regulatory audits.

Gap analysis

In addition to meeting the ‘state of the art’ requirements and the continuous proactive monitoring of standards, once a change has been detected that affects the technical documentation, a proper and thorough gap analysis must be completed.

The gap analysis between the old versions and the new versions, or an evaluation of a brand new standard, must occur and be properly documented. The gap analysis should detail what is applicable and what is not applicable, with your supporting justification.

If something within the new or revised standard was applicable to your device, additional engineering testing, documentation, justification, and, in some instances design changes, may be needed to ensure compliance

GSPR updates

Once the gap analysis has been properly documented, specification developers and manufacturers must update their GSPRs.

These updates include finding the withdrawn or superseded standard or evidence file throughout each row within your GSPR table, for every single device on the market on which this change is applicable. This could be one table or dozens of tables depending on the complexity of the products and your product mix.

Without a holistic RIM system to help you, this is an error-prone process as is it tedious, administrative, and extremely easy to miss an inappropriate referenced standard or evidence file.

Extreme diligence on the regulatory or engineering team must occur to ensure these critical updates to the GSPRs are not missed and a gap analysis must be properly referenced throughout. Any justification for including or excluding a new standard or evidence file will be scrutinized by regulatory auditors, and without proper maintenance, may lead to additional review time.

Comparison table: EU MDR Annex I GSPRs vs EU MDD Annex I Essential Principles

To continue reading this eBook including Comparison Table of the EU MDR Annex I GSPR vs. the EU MDD Annex I Essential Requirements, please register to download the full version.

Similar posts

Registration deadlines don't have to be a risk. See how centralized data, automated alerts, and standardized workflows keep global registrations on track

MedTech

RIM

Product Updates

How to Prevent Registration Deadline Misses in 2026

By

Bethaney Lentz

August 4, 2026

4 min read

A missed registration deadline can halt sales, trigger regulatory penalties, and damage your organization's credibility with health authorities. For MedTech regulatory affairs teams managing hundreds or thousands of product registrations across dozens of markets, preventing deadline misses requires more than calendar reminders. It demands structured data, clear workflows, and real-time visibility into expiration timelines.

This guide explains why registration compliance deadlines are missed and how your team can prevent delays through stronger data control, workflow visibility, and process standardization.

Key Takeaways: How to Prevent Registration Deadline Misses in 2026

  • Registration deadline misses typically stem from fragmented data, unclear ownership, and siloed communication between teams.
  • Proactive renewal management requires real-time visibility into expiration dates across your entire global product portfolio.
  • Standardized workflows with assigned accountability eliminate the confusion that leads to overlooked deadlines.
  • Rimsys centralizes registration data and automates renewal alerts, reducing the risk of missed deadlines by up to 90%.
  • Investing in a purpose-built RIM platform protects revenue continuity and maintains uninterrupted market access.

Why Do MedTech Teams Miss Registration Compliance Deadlines?

Registration deadline misses  occur because the operating model cannot scale with growing portfolio complexity. Understanding root causes is the first step toward prevention.

Fragmented Data Across Systems and Regions

Many organizations track registrations using disconnected regional trackers, shared drives, and individual team member records. When product data lives in multiple locations, no single source of truth exists. This fragmentation makes it difficult to identify upcoming expirations before they become urgent.

A registration that expires in Brazil may be tracked in one system while the same product's EU approval is monitored elsewhere. Without connection between these records, teams lack portfolio-wide visibility into renewal timelines.

Unclear Ownership and Accountability

When responsibilities are distributed across regional leads, in-country partners, and distributors without clear accountability structures, deadlines fall through the cracks. Team members may assume someone else is handling a renewal, leading to inaction until the deadline passes.

Organizations with high turnover face additional risk. When key personnel leave, institutional knowledge about pending renewals often leaves with them.

Reactive Tracking Instead of Proactive Management

Calendar-based reminders and email notifications are inherently reactive. By the time a reminder appears, teams may not have enough runway to gather required documentation, coordinate with authorities, or address unexpected complications.

Effective deadline management requires proactive monitoring that surfaces upcoming expirations months in advance, not days before they occur.

What Happens When Registration Deadlines Are Missed?

The consequences of missed registration deadlines extend beyond administrative inconvenience. They create tangible business disruptions that affect revenue, reputation, and regulatory standing.

Loss of Market Access and Revenue Disruption

An expired registration means your product cannot legally be sold in that market. Regulatory teams must halt shipments, distribution partners cannot fulfill orders, and revenue stops flowing. For high-volume products or critical markets, even brief interruptions to the supply chain can translate to significant financial impact.

Re-registering a lapsed product often takes longer than a standard renewal. Your team may face additional scrutiny, updated documentation requirements, or queue delays that extend the time to market restoration.

Regulatory Penalties and Increased Scrutiny

Health authorities track compliance history. Missed deadlines signal operational weaknesses that can trigger increased inspection frequency, additional documentation requests, or enhanced scrutiny on future submissions. Building trust with regulators takes years; eroding it takes one avoidable miss.

Damage to Distributor and Partner Relationships

In-country partners and distributors depend on your organization to maintain valid registrations. When market access lapses, partners bear the burden of explaining delays to healthcare providers and end customers. Repeated misses can damage long-term business relationships and competitive positioning.

How to Identify Products at Risk of Deadline Misses

Prevention starts with identifying which registrations are most vulnerable. A systematic risk assessment helps teams prioritize attention and allocate resources effectively.

Create a Consolidated Registration Inventory

Bring all registration data into a single view. Include product identifiers, registration numbers, approval dates, expiration dates, responsible parties, and market-specific requirements. This inventory becomes your foundation for risk assessment.

Rimsys Registration Software centralizes this data automatically, linking registrations to products, submissions, and regulatory intelligence in one structured system.

Segment by Expiration Timeline and Complexity

Not all renewals carry equal risk. Categorize registrations by time remaining until expiration and by the complexity of renewal requirements. Products expiring within the next 90 days with extensive documentation needs should receive immediate attention.

Consider country-specific factors. Some markets require local testing, updated clinical data, or notified body involvement. These requirements extend lead times and increase the risk of delays.

Assess Documentation Readiness

For each at-risk registration, evaluate whether required documentation is current and accessible. Outdated technical files, missing test reports, or incomplete labeling information create bottlenecks that delay renewal submissions.

Documentation gaps discovered weeks before a deadline often cannot be addressed in time. Early assessment ensures enough runway to resolve issues.

Building a Proactive Renewal Management System

Moving from reactive tracking to proactive management requires intentional process design. The following components form the foundation of an effective renewal management system.

Establish Clear Ownership for Every Registration

Assign a single accountable owner for each registration. This person is responsible for monitoring expiration timelines, coordinating renewal activities, and escalating issues that require additional support.

Ownership should be documented within your registration management system, not stored in separate organizational charts or email threads. When someone leaves the organization, ownership transfer becomes straightforward.

Define Standard Lead Times by Market and Product Type

Different markets have different renewal timelines. EU MDR renewals involve notified body coordination. FDA establishment registrations follow annual cycles. ANVISA submissions may require specific local documentation.

Document the standard lead time needed for each market and product type. Use these lead times to trigger renewal workflows well before deadlines approach.

Implement Automated Expiration Monitoring

Replace manual calendar tracking with automated monitoring that surfaces upcoming expirations across your entire portfolio. Alerts should trigger at multiple intervals, such as 180 days, 90 days, 60 days, and 30 days before expiration.

Automated monitoring ensures that no registration is overlooked, regardless of portfolio size or team bandwidth. Rimsys Global Regulatory Compliance capabilities include lifecycle tracking and automated alerts that reduce missed renewal risk.

Standardizing Workflows to Prevent Oversight

Consistent workflows eliminate the variability that leads to deadlines. When every renewal follows the same structured process, teams can identify and address deviations before they cause problems.

Create Renewal Workflow Templates

Define the steps required for each type of renewal. Include documentation gathering, internal review, submission preparation, authority submission, and post-submission tracking. Assign responsible parties and expected durations for each step.

Templates ensure that new team members can execute renewals correctly without relying on undocumented institutional knowledge.

Build Escalation Paths for Delayed Activities

Not every renewal proceeds according to plan. Documentation may be delayed. Authority responses may take longer than expected. Partners may fail to submit required local information.

Define clear escalation paths that activate when activities fall behind schedule. Escalation should be automatic and visible, not dependent on individual team members raising concerns manually.

Conduct Regular Pipeline Reviews

Schedule recurring reviews of your renewal pipeline. During these reviews, examine registrations approaching expiration, identify any blocked activities, and confirm that responsible parties are on track.

Pipeline reviews surface potential issues early, when corrective action is still possible. They also reinforce accountability by making renewal status visible to leadership.

How Data Control Reduces Deadline Risk

Strong data control is the foundation of reliable deadline management. When registration data is accurate, current, and accessible, teams make better decisions and avoid preventable misses.

Maintain a Single Source of Truth

Eliminate competing data sources by establishing one authoritative system for registration information. All team members, partners, and stakeholders should access the same data, ensuring consistency and reducing confusion.

A single source of truth means that when someone asks about a product's registration status in a specific market, the answer is immediate and reliable. No cross-referencing multiple trackers. No waiting for colleagues to respond to email inquiries.

Connect Registration Data to Product and Submission Records

Registrations do not exist in isolation. They connect to specific products, rely on previous submissions, and may be affected by regulatory changes or product modifications. Systems that link these data types enable more accurate impact analysis.

When a product design change occurs, connected data helps teams identify which registrations may need updated. When regulations evolve, linked intelligence shows which markets and products are affected.

Ensure Version Control and Audit Readiness

Regulatory authorities expect organizations to demonstrate controlled processes. Maintain version history for all registration-related documentation. Track who made changes, when changes occurred, and what was modified.

Audit readiness built into daily operations means less scrambling when inspections occur. It also shows the historical context needed to understand how registration status evolved over time.

Leveraging Technology for Visibility and Automation

Technology plays a critical role in scaling deadline management across large portfolios. Purpose-built regulatory information management platforms offer capabilities that generic tools cannot match.

Dashboard Visibility Across Global Markets

Executive and operational dashboards display at-a-glance visibility into registration status across your entire portfolio. Filter by market, product line, expiration timeline, or responsible party, to focus on relevant subsets.

Dashboard visibility enables leadership to ask and answer questions quickly:

  • How many registrations will expire in the next quarter?
  • Which markets have the highest concentration of upcoming renewals?
  • Are any renewals currently blocked?

Automated Alerts and Notifications

Configure alerts that notify responsible parties when action is required. Notifications should be specific, actionable, and timely. Rather than generic reminders, alerts should identify the specific registration, required action, and deadline.

Effective notification systems reduce the cognitive burden on team members. Instead of tracking deadlines mentally, they receive prompts when attention is needed.

Reporting for Continuous Improvement

Track metrics that indicate process health. Monitor the number of registrations renewed on time, average lead time utilization, and frequency of expedited renewals. Use these metrics to identify process weaknesses and drive improvement.

Organizations that measure renewal performance can demonstrate compliance maturity to regulators, partners, and investors. Metrics also help justify investments in process improvement.

How Rimsys Helps Prevent Registration Deadline Misses

Rimsys is the first and only holistic Regulatory Information Management software purpose-built for MedTech. It centralizes registrations, submissions, regulatory intelligence, and UDI data in one connected platform, giving teams the visibility and automation needed to prevent deadline misses.

Centralized Global Registration Tracking

Rimsys maintains a structured, product-centric data model that connects registrations to products, markets, and submissions. Teams gain real-time visibility into where every product can be sold, which registrations are pending, and which are approaching expiration.

Six of the world's top 12 MedTech manufacturers trust Rimsys to manage global regulatory operations, achieving up to 90% reduction in reporting effort and elimination of manual tracking risk.

Automated Lifecycle Alerts

Rimsys monitors registration lifecycles and automatically alerts teams to upcoming expirations, renewals, and information requests. Automated alerts ensure that no registration is overlooked, regardless of the portfolio size.

With Rimsys AI, teams can accelerate regulatory work through AI-assisted workflows that reduce repetitive tasks while keeping human judgment in control.

Connected Regulatory Intelligence

Registration deadlines do not exist in isolation from regulatory change. New requirements can affect renewal timelines, documentation needs, or market access conditions.

Rimsys connects registration data to regulatory intelligence and impact assessment workflows, helping teams understand how changes affect their portfolio before deadlines become urgent.

Creating a Culture of Deadline Accountability

Technology and process alone do not prevent deadline misses. Organizations must also cultivate a culture where deadline accountability is valued and reinforced.

Make Renewal Performance Visible

Share renewal metrics with teams and leadership regularly. Celebrate on-time renewals and analyze near-misses to identify improvement opportunities. Visibility creates accountability without requiring punitive measures.

Invest in Team Training and Development

Ensure that team members understand the importance of deadline management and have the skills to execute renewal workflows effectively. Training should cover both procedural requirements and the business impact of missed deadlines.

Support Cross-Functional Collaboration

Registrations often require input from quality, engineering, labeling, and commercial teams. Foster collaboration across functions to ensure that dependencies are identified early and addressed proactively.

When regulatory affairs teams operate in silos, they lack the information needed to anticipate complications. Cross-functional visibility enables earlier intervention.

In Conclusion: How to Prevent Registration Deadline Misses

Preventing registration deadline misses requires intentional effort across three dimensions: data control, workflow visibility, and process standardization. Organizations that invest in these areas protect revenue continuity, maintain regulatory standing, and preserve partner relationships.

The complexity of global regulatory operations is not slowing down. As portfolios expand and requirements evolve, teams need infrastructure that scales. Rimsys transforms regulatory operations from administrative tracking into strategic enablement, bringing speed, visibility, and confidence to global expansion.

Ready to eliminate deadline risk from your registration management? Speak with the Rimsys team to see how leading MedTech manufacturers manage global registrations with precision and control.

References:

How Smith & Nephew Repositioned Regulatory as a Strategic Commercial Partner

MedTech

RIM

How Smith & Nephew Repositioned Regulatory as a Strategic Commercial Partner

By

Caroline La

May 28, 2026

4 min read

Smith & Nephew is a global medical device manufacturerwith a broad portfolio spanning orthopedics, sports medicine, and woundmanagement, sold and registered across markets worldwide. Before Rimsys,regulatory data was scattered across spreadsheets, shared drives, anddisconnected systems.

When Smith & Nephew selected Rimsys, they deployed enterprise-wide from day one. Executive reporting moved from manual fire drills to real-time dashboards. Change impact assessments became faster and more consistent. The regulatory team made the shift from reactive compliance function to strategic partner to the business.

The Challenge

Regulatory data at Smith & Nephew lived in multiplespreadsheets, shared drives, SharePoint sites, emails, and disconnectedsystems. Without a centralized record, the team could not reliably trackregistration timelines, measure on-time submissions, assess change impacts, orunderstand the downstream impact of product changes across markets. Preparingexecutive reporting meant manually assembling data from multiple sources, aprocess that consumed time and introduced risk each time.

The Solution

Smith & Nephew selected Rimsys for its configurable, notcustomized, platform: an intuitive user interface, centralized submissionmanagement, robust metrics, change assessment capabilities, and UDI supportwith machine-to-machine transmission. Rimsys’ interconnected modulearchitecture linked products, registrations, projects, change assessments, andUDI in a centralized location.

Rather than piloting in one business unit, Smith &Nephew deployed Rimsys across the entire regulatory organization from day one.The decision was deliberate: a partial deployment would have preserved thefragmentation. Enterprise-wide adoption established consistent metrics,standardized processes, and a single source of truth from the start.

The Results

Executive and board reporting, previously built from manualdata pulls, now flows directly from Rimsys in real time. What had been adisruptive, recurring effort is now a routine view. Leadership has thevisibility to make faster, more confident decisions, and the regulatory team isno longer pulled into reporting fire drills.

Change management has also been transformed. Direct linkagebetween products, registrations, and projects means impact assessments arefaster and less dependent on individual knowledge. UDI operations havesimilarly improved: machine-to-machine transmission has reduced manual uploadsand centralized DI record visibility supports global UDI requirements.

The most significant shift is strategic. With centralizedregulatory intelligence and real-time data, Smith & Nephew’s regulatoryteam now actively supports commercial planning: informing budget cycles,guiding renewal and launch sequencing, and advising on regulatory pathways toaccelerate market entry. Regulatory is no longer a downstream compliancefunction. It is a business partner.

Smith & Nephew now runs four modules across its RIM operation:

  • Registrations— Centralized license tracking across 250 countries and 30+ business units
  • Change Assessments— Direct product-registration linkage for faster, consistent impact assessments
  • Executive Reports— Real-time dashboards replacing manual data pulls and board reporting fire drills
  • UDI— Machine-to-machine transmission reducing manual uploads across global markets

Take this to your team

If you’re evaluating how to modernize RIM operations at scale, the Smith & Nephew case study is a practical reference to share internally. It covers the full implementation story, module breakdown, and results data in a format built for stakeholder conversations.

Download the Case Study

MedTech

RIM

How Philips Scaled Active Product Registrations More Than 20x

By

Caroline La

May 21, 2026

4 min read

Philips Healthcare operates one of the largest regulatory portfolios in global MedTech: products registered across 250 countries, with a footprint that grows with every acquisition. Before Rimsys, that complexity was managed through email and spreadsheets. Submission packages moved through inboxes with no audit trail, no performance data, and no reliable view of where products were authorized to ship.

Philips selected Rimsys in 2022 as the enterprise RIM platform to bring regulatory order to that complexity. Since go-live, active product registrations have scaled more than 20x, user adoption has doubled in the last six months, and the regulatory affairs function now operates from a single source of truth spanning the entire enterprise.

The Challenge

Without structured data, Philips could not measure regulatory performance, track license expiration across the portfolio, or identify where submission work was stalling. Every acquisition made it worse: incoming business units arrived with their own workflows and systems, absorbing more fragmentation rather than resolving it.

The Solution

Philips evaluated multiple platforms against requirements built with both market-facing and business regulatory affairs teams. Rimsys won on two dimensions: an interface that made complex product and registration data immediately visible, and more enterprise-ready features than competing platforms at the right price point.

Philips went live with Rimsys Registrations and Submissions modules in July 2022. The team deployed platform experts for train-the-trainer sessions and launched regular drop-in sessions where users could ask questions and surface issues. Standing up a dedicated Regulatory Operations team focused exclusively on rest-of-world registration accelerated adoption further.

When an early business unit pushed back on workflow efficiency, Philips and Rimsys worked through it together. A hands-on process walkthrough identified exactly what needed to change, a resolution plan was shared, and that transparency and collaboration became the foundation for sustained user buy-in across the enterprise.

The Results

Since go-live, Philips has scaled active product registrations more than 20x, with further growth already underway. What started as a single deployment now spans 30+ business units across 250 countries, with Rimsys serving as the single source of truth for regulatory data across the enterprise, including businesses acquired since implementation.

For the first time, Philips can measure its own regulatory performance. KPIs flow directly from the platform, giving leadership real-time visibility into registration health. When anomalies surface, they drive data correction and user training, closing gaps that previously went undetected until they affected revenue.

Now with Rimsys AI-assisted Submissions and Regulatory Intelligence now in use, Philips expects to accelerate further: reducing administrative burden so skilled regulatory professionals can focus on strategy.

Philips now runs four modules across its RIM operation:

  • Registrations— Centralized license tracking across 250 countries and 30+ business units
  • Submissions— AI-assisted submission workflows replacing email-based package management
  • Intelligence— Real-time KPI dashboards giving leadership visibility into registration health
  • Standards— Essential Principles and standards tracking aligned to global market requirements

Take this to your team

If you’re evaluating how to modernize RIM operations at scale, the Philips Healthcare case study is a practical reference to share internally. It covers the full implementation story, module breakdown, and results data in a format built for stakeholder conversations.

Download the Case Study

I agree to the privacy policy including to Rimsys using my contact details to contact me for marketing purposes.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Hand holding smartphone showing email app with 12 unread messages notification.