Paperless Manufacturing – The Easy to Implement Cost Effective Way!

All your records in one secure location

Flexible Approach

Kneat Manufacturing™ is the most flexible approach to paperless manufacturing yet. It delivers a large proportion of MES benefits with almost no disruption and for a fraction of the cost.

Kneat Manufacturing has all of the management documentation functionality required for regulated manufacturing in a simple affordable FDA compliant system.

The Kneat platform allows companies to build solutions around their business processes by using our 100% configurable software.

Simplify
Kneat Manufacturing has been designed to simplify the documentation processes associated with manufacturing and batch production.

Natural Alternative
Kneat is a natural alternative for manufacturing companies who are using MS Word and Excel generated paper documents to record elements of their manufacturing processes.

One Version of the Truth
A key feature of Kneat is not only can the batch or device history record be automatically generated on creation of the batch or lot number, but all associated forms from bill of materials, inventory requests, specifications, QC inspections, etc, can also be created at the same time so that they are available and easily accessed by operations personnel when required.

Instantiate All Related Batch Records
Once a new batch number is created in the Batch Number Assignment Form, the master manufacturing records are instantiated and all associated records for that batch are generated in one secure location

Full Visibility
Removing the paper and putting your production process online means that management can now have full visibility on the progress of all production lots in real time without having to enter the production environment.

Non Conformances
Non-conformances can be flagged and dealt with in real time, reducing delays and improving the use of resources.

No More Paper Chasing
Electronic work flow processes mean that the approval of a batch for release is now a collaborative process, gone are the days of chasing paper. Retrieval of critical records is only a button click away.

No Customisations
Customizations create a legacy problem when upgrading to newer system versions, because at least a part of the customizations will have to be re-implemented in the new version, creating cost in terms of development, testing, and re-validation.
Kneat’s .NET platform is 100% configurable ensuring no custom code or bespoke development is required

Part 11 & Annex 11 Ready
The Kneat.net platform conforms to compliance standards such as FDA’s 21 CFR part 11 (for electronic records and signatures) and EU’s Annex 11. Users of the Kneat Gx application can rest assured that their data is fully protected according to the regulatory requirements.

Contact Details

Kneat Solutions
National Technological Park
Limerick
Ireland

Website: www.kneat.com
Phone: +353 61 203826
General Inquiries: inquiry@kneat.com

0
shares

Similar articles:

The Difference Between Prospective, Concurrent and Retrospective Validation

Unless you’re starting a new company you will need to plan on a variety of approaches.

Prospective validation occurs before the system is used in production, concurrent validation occurs simultaneously with production, and retrospective validation occurs after production use has occurred.

In this article we will discuss all three and also discuss the role the master validation plan (MVP) performs for each one.

1. Prospective Validation

Prospective validation is establishing documented evidence, prior to process implementation, that a system performs as is intended, based on pre-planned protocols.

This is the preferred approach.

Production is not started until all validation activities are completed.

The MVP need not go into much detail about this approach since it’s the standard method, however, prospective validation follows a step wise process illustrated here.

The process commences with the development of a Validation Plan and then passes through the DQ, RA, IQ, OQ and PQ phases after which process, computer, analytical and cleaning validations are performed which are followed by a final report.

After which the instrument or equipment will be subject to preventative maintenance and requalification on a routine basis.

Periodic Basis

On a periodic basis all instrumentation and equipment should be reviewed. This review is intended to identify any gaps which may have developed between the time it was last qualified and current requirements.

If any gaps are identified a remediation plan will be developed and the process will start again.

The MVP

The MVP may need to describe what is done with product produced during prospective validation. Typically, it is either scrapped or marked not for use or sale.

The product may be suitable for additional engineering testing or demonstrations, but appropriate efforts need to be made to ensure this product does not enter the supply chain.

Ideally, all validation is done prospectively; i.e., the system is validated before use. However, there are cases and conditions which may prevent this.

2. Concurrent Validation

Concurrent validation is used to establish documented evidence that a facility and process will perform as they are intended, based on information generated during actual use of the process.

In exceptional circumstances (for example, in a case of immediate and urgent public health need) validation may need to be conducted in parallel with routine production. The MVP needs to define how product is managed throughout the process.

Typically, the product batches are quarantined until they can be demonstrated (QC analysis) to meet specifications.

The Right Decision?

The decision to perform concurrent validation should not be made in a vacuum. All stakeholders including management, Quality Assurance and the government regulatory agencies should all agree that concurrent validation is an acceptable approach for the system under consideration.

As always the principal requirement is patient safety is not compromised. The rationale to conduct concurrent validation should be documented along with the agreement to do so by all the stakeholders. This can be part of the Validation Plan or documented as a deviation.

The Process

The concurrent validation process is identical to that of prospective validation. The process starts with the development of a Validation Plan, followed by the DQ, RA, IQ, OQ and PQ phases after which process, computer, analytical and cleaning validations are performed, ending with a final report.

Again, routine preventative maintenance, requalification and periodic review are performed.

3. Retrospective Validation

Retrospective validation is validating a system that has been operating for some time. There are various schools of thought on how to approach retrospective validation. Some may feel that a full-blown validation is required to assure the system is functioning properly.

Others may feel that since the system has been in use, presumably without issues, validation is not necessary and a memo to file justifying why validation is not necessary may be issued.

Doing a full validation may not be required, since you already have proof that the system functions as required – at least in the situations in which production was conducted. Doing nothing, though, is a risk.

It’s likely that the controls haven’t been challenged so there may be some hidden flaws that haven’t been identified that could lead to non-conforming product, hazardous operating conditions, extended delays, etc.

Historical Data

Historical data can certainly be used to support validation. For example, if there is detailed and statistically-significant evidence that production runs are well controlled you could rationalize and justify not doing full validation.

During retrospective validation, it’s advisable that existing product be quarantined, and production put on hold until validation is complete.

As an exception, producing product as part of the validation exercise would follow concurrent validation. This may not be practical since product may have already been distributed, but caution is advised for the reasons outlined.

General Process

The general process for retrospective validation follows the same process as for prospective and concurrent validation except DQ is seldom performed, as the system has already been in use for some time.

Instead a survey and review of available information is performed. This normally occurs before the validation plan is created.

The MVP should also provide guidance on managing inventory during retrospective validation.

One Major Issue

One potential major problem that can occur with retrospective validation the determination of what action should be taken if an issue is found with the system during retrospective validation?

As with everything else, a risk-based decision is warranted. This could be anything from product recall, to customer notifications, to just documenting the justification of the decision why nothing was done.

Again, the MVP should provide guidance on dealing with situations concerning out of specification conditions revealed during retrospective validation, which should also definitely include involving regulatory support.

8
shares

Similar articles:

International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) in a Nutshell [Video]

The ICH is a common project of regulatory authorities and representatives of pharmaceutical industries in EU, Japan and the US.

Its mission is to discuss issues related to approval and marketing authorization of new medicinal products in these three regions.

Namely, the six parties involved are the:

  • European Commission
  • The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations
  • The Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare
  • The Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association
  • The US FDA
  • The US Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association

In addition to these principals, there are three observers representing non-ICH countries:

  • World Health Organisation (WHO)
  • The European Free Trade Association (EFTA)
  • Health Canada

Primary Objective

The primary objective of ICH is to harmonize regulatory requirements related to quality, safety and efficacy of medicinal products and to support mutual recognitions between the three regulatory authorities.

Exchange of Data

Mutual recognitions are based on the exchange of data and assessment reports which are intended to eliminate duplicative testing and inspection procedures, and thus decrease costs of, and speed up, the introduction of new medicinal products to the markets.

cGMP – Cases from History and the Regulations

If you would like to learn more about the regulations governing the GMP’s click here.

10
shares

TOP

Similar articles: