 |

AAMI Standards Philosophy and Strategy
Key Elements
The Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation
(AAMI) is a unique alliance of professionals and organizations dedicated
to the understanding and beneficial use of medical device technology.
AAMI members include health care institutions, research and teaching
facilities, government agencies, manufacturers, test houses, trade
associations and individual health care professionals.
AAMI and its members have assumed an important leadership responsibility
in medical device standards worldwide. Over more than 35 years of
developing medical device standards, the following have evolved
as the guiding principles of the AAMI Standards Program:
| |
|
Requirements
should be performance-based; design standards should be avoided
as they can limit innovation and restrict competition. Requirements
should include a corresponding rationale to assist standards
users in understanding the requirement, and to help avoid gratuitous
requirements. Standards should allow for technology changes/innovation.
As appropriate, proven test methods should be provided that
standards users can follow to determine compliance with the
requirements. |
| |
2. |
There should
be at most one globally applied standard and one globally
accepted test, with conformity assessment processes appropriate
to the needs of the parties, for each characteristic of a product,
process or service.1 |
| |
3. |
National
standards developing organizations (SDO) should not purport
to be consensus international standards bodies. All interests
should work through accepted international bodies such as ISO,
IEC and ITU whenever possible to avoid duplication of effort
and standards. |
| |
4. |
Standards
are not the basis of competition; they are the basis of good
practices in terms of patient safety and the basis of
harmonizing marketplace, regulatory and other requirements to
enhance the use of technology for the welfare of patients. Standards
should enhance competition, commerce and the availability of
devices and not be barriers to trade. |
| |
5. |
Standards
planning and development should be managed on a sectoral basis.
In the health care field, standards projects and priorities
should reflect the combined needs of government and health care
providers as well as industry that is expected to support development
of the standard and ultimately to meet the standard. Otherwise,
the project will not have the needed technical support from
volunteer committee members and/or the final document will be
underutilized. Most if not all technical planning efforts should
be bottom up, not top down. Standards, when needed and relevant,
are an important way for industry, through collaboration and
consensus, to serve its customers: health care professionals,
regulatory bodies and patients. |
| |
6. |
Standards
should be based on current technology and consensus; they should
not generally lead the state of technology, although exceptions
may be necessary e.g. in cases where a standard is needed in
order to introduce a system-wide technological innovation. To
the extent possible, standards requirements should be based
on published, peer-reviewed studies combined with practical
experience from the user community. |
| |
7. |
Standards
should be developed only where there is a clear need
validated e.g. by a risk assessment and should address
only essential requirements. Resources are limited and must
be used wisely. A corollary of this statement is that standards
are an important reference to responsible decision-making, but
should never replace responsible decision-making by medical
device manufacturers and users. |
| |
8. |
Governments
should participate with other stakeholders in the setting of
priorities for standards, in standards development and in funding
standards activities. Governments should utilize voluntary standards
in the regulatory process, but government should not be the
exclusive or dominant agent in developing standards unless there
are compelling circumstances. |
| |
9. |
Governments
rarely have the resources to effectively and efficiently develop standards and
keep them up to date (which is critical in a regulatory context).
To be effective, such standards require strong input from industry and the professions,
i.e., the developers and the users of technology.
For these reasons, the voluntary consensus standards system should be seen by governments as a viable alternative to developing their own technical standards. A corollary
of this statement is that SDOs have a major responsibility to
assure that their standards are relevant to the current state of technology. |
| |
10. |
As standards in the health care field, regardless of how they are developed, rarely lead technology, their adoption as regulation may inappropriately preclude cutting edge technology, and become a barrier to innovation. Such barriers do not serve the best interest of patients, manufacturers or governments. Therefore, governments should view voluntary consensus standards as a way, but only one way, to demonstrate compliance with relevant regulatory requirements. However, when public health concerns mandate the adoption of standards, they should be incorporated by reference in regulation. |
| |
11. |
Duplication
of effort should be avoided at both the national and international
level. The concept of giving choices of conflicting
standards to users of standards is a burdensome concept in a
regulatory context. In addition, unnecessary duplication adds
cost to the system and dilutes the consensus process by encouraging
forum shopping. |
| |
12. |
A fundamental
premise underlying effective voluntary standards in the health
care technology field is that the user of the standard is a
trained and experienced professional who knows when and how
a standard should be used and understands the limitations, in
general, of voluntary standards. |
| |
13. |
There are
many instances where a standard is not the appropriate solution
for a safety or performance issue and, in these instances, other
means of resolution should be employed. |
| |
14. |
Technical
reports are useful when there is insufficient basis or consensus
for a standard. Documents that do not allow for full participation
and consensus development (e.g., workshop agreements, fast-track
adoptions, consortia documents), while of possible use to some
industries, should be avoided in the medical area given the
safety, regulatory and trade issues involved that require a
high level of public due process and consensus. |
Approved by the AAMI Board of Directors, June 2007
Reference
1. National Standards Strategy for the United States; 2000, ANSI
|
|