Issue 5: Implications of ISO Certification and Licensing of Patient Management Software
Context
On August 31, 2009, Health Canada’s Medical Devices Bureau posted an announcement1
(file number: 09-122095-269; Subject: Classification of Medical Devices Class I or Class II patient management software) that patient management software may be subject to classification as either Class I or Class II medical devices and will require compulsory licensing. Currently, a large number of patient management software providers are not licensed. This is not a new licensing issue; Health Canada has classified patient management software as medical devices for almost five years. However, this is the first time Health Canada has set a deadline for licensing approval and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) certification, and it is the first time Health Canada has publicly announced that patient management software that allows data to be “manipulated” will be classified as Class II medical devices.
There are implications associated with Health Canada’s announcement for physicians and health care administrators, federal and provincial health ministries, and industry: The disruption in the use or sale of patient management software could potentially compromise the ability of these stakeholders to administer effective health care.
Objective
The purpose of this report is to identify the issues surrounding this topic and the potential impact that Health Canada’s classification of patient management software as medical devices will have on health care administrators, physicians, federal and provincial health ministries, and industry.
Findings
The main issue concerning all stakeholders is that there is not enough capacity in Canada to support vendors requiring ISO compliance for patient management software categorized as Class II medical devices by the deadline of August 31, 2010.
Federal and provincial health ministries
Health Canada’s decision to classify patient management software as medical devices comes at a time when federal and provincial governments are actively pursuing policy objectives involving the deployment of electronic health records. Indeed, Canada Health Infoway, a federally funded organization, was created to promote and advance electronic health records in Canada. Jurisdictions are also supporting their own eHealth initiatives. Consequently, there is speculation that federal and provincial plans to accelerate the development and adoption of electronic health records solutions across Canada could be delayed.
Manitoba eHealth, a provincial information and communication technology program, is very concerned about the potential impact of Health Canada’s recent notice and its new interpretation of the term “medical device” to include some types of patient management software. Manitoba eHealth’s concern is that Health Canada’s decision may have significant implications for the health care sector in the province, where patient management software currently in wide use may be reclassified as “medical devices” and not meet the new Health Canada requirement to comply with Medical Device regulations. Roger Girard, the Chief Information Officer of Manitoba eHealth, believes there are very few software packages in Manitoba that meet this standard. He is concerned that software that may become non-compliant as a result of this new interpretation will have to be replaced and that the replacement would be very problematic, resulting in significant costs and disruptions in service. As he put it, “We will certainly even be challenged to identify where all of the non-compliant software is and to determine the responsibility of facilities with respect to its replacement.”
Physicians and health administrators
Health care providers are concerned that if patient management software systems currently in place do not achieve ISO compliance either by the deadline or at all, they will be forced to seek alternative solutions. Transitioning to new systems is often perceived as being costly and time-consuming. There are also concerns regarding maintaining the integrity of electronic data while migrating from one system to another. Additionally, there are unknowns regarding the legal status and liability of health care providers who continue to use unlicensed software products.
Industry
One of the major concerns of industry is that the notice issued by Health Canada lacks clarification on the precise definition of Class I and Class II medical devices. Subsequently, some patient management software providers are unsure of whether they need to apply for a license, and if they do, what category they will be classified under. Industry has been granted a transitional period of one year to seek product licensing1 and ISO certification from specified registrars.2 Industry is also concerned that the redeployment of efforts to achieve ISO compliance could compromise its ability to develop, sell, and support its products during the intervening period if an extended deadline is not granted.
On October 15, 2009, the Information Technology Association of Canada’s health arm (ITAC Health) met with Health Canada to discuss the implications of the notice. ITAC Health is a body that represents the interests of more than 120 Canadian information and communication technology companies that operate in the health sector. There are approximately 300 additional information and communication technology companies involved in the health sector that are not members of ITAC Health.3
ITAC Health, with support from MEDEC,4 appealed to Health Canada to extend the transitional period from the original 12 months to between 36 and 48 months. ITAC Health believes that the majority of the products developed and sold by its members would fall under the Class II category of medical devices.3
Health Canada has indicated that it will amend the August 31 notice with consideration to health sector concerns. It is anticipated that Health Canada will be seeking legal counsel with regard to the status of products already deployed in the health care system and the sale of new products during the transition period. An amended notice is expected to be made public at the end of November 2009.
Knowledge Gaps
Results of this report are based on a limited literature search and communications with key informants. As such, the comprehensiveness of this report cannot be guaranteed. This report is based on information gathered as of November 11, 2009, and may not reflect the most current information.
Conclusion
Health Canada is aware of the different stakeholder concerns regarding potential implications of the notice they released on August 31, 2009. Consequently, they are reviewing their decision, and any potential amendments will be made public at the end of November 2009.
References
1. Medical Device Bureau. Notice - Classification of Medical Devices Class I or Class II patient management software. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2009. Available from: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/md-im/activit/announce-annonce/md_notice_software_im_avis_logicels-eng.php
2. List of registrars recognized by Health Canada under section 32.1 of the Medical Devices Regulations (MDR). Ottawa: Health Canada; 2008. Available from: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/md-im/qualsys/list_liste_regist-eng.php
3. ITAC Health. Mississauga: Information Technology Association of Canada; 2009. Available from: http://www.itac.ca/index.php?/health/
4. Meeting - ITAC Health and Health Canada - October 15, 2009. In: Ottawa: ITAC; 2009. Available from: http://www.itachealth.blogspot.com/.
|
Cite as: Morrison, A. Implications of ISO Certification and Licensing of Patient Management Software [Environmental Scan issue 5]. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2009. CADTH takes sole responsibility for the final form and content of this environmental scan. The statements and conclusions in this environmental scan are those of CADTH. Production of this report is made possible by financial contributions from Health Canada, and the governments of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, and Yukon. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health takes sole responsibility for the final form and content of this report. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of Health Canada or any provincial or territorial government. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) 600-865 Carling Avenue |