Let's Talk Risk! with Dr. Naveen Agarwal

Imagine you are running a pivotal clinical trial for a novel implant. The data comes back, and it is rough: 80% of your patients have suffered a serious adverse event, and 40% have developed acute kidney injury.If you are sitting in the regulatory or risk management seat, you are likely drafting the project’s post-mortem. In a traditional risk management paradigm, you are preparing to tell the executive team that the device failed to meet any traditional safety threshold.But what if the FDA didn’t just approve this device, but approved it specifically because the sponsors mathematically proved that patients were willing to tolerate a higher level or risk to gain access to this device?This scenario completely dismantles the way the MedTech industry has historically viewed safety and effectiveness. As professionals, we are trained to treat clinical thresholds as objective, immutable laws of physics—a line in the sand where an adverse event rate either passes or fails. However, with the FDA’s finalized guidance issued on March 30, 2026, safety is no longer just a raw numerical threshold; it is now a quantifiable variable relative to the validated preference of the end user.So, how does a manufacturer mathematically prove that a severe safety profile is acceptable, and how does the FDA reconcile approving it?🎧Click Play above to listen to a brief audio summary about this case and lessons QA/RA and Clinical professionals can apply in practice using the newly released FDA Guidance.In this episode, we discuss:* The fundamental difference between Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient Preference Information (PPI)—and why conflating the two leads to flawed regulatory submissions.* The exact mechanics of how a rigorously designed Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) rescued the alfapump system from regulatory rejection.* How to utilize the Q-submission program to negotiate mathematical models with the FDA before collecting a single data point.* Strategic traps to avoid, including the “subpopulation matching problem” that can engineer a massive off-label use issue for your pipeline.Thanks for reading Let's Talk Risk!. If you liked this post, share with others.Note:The audio summary was prepared using Google NotebookLM, an AI-enabled research tool. Here are a few key resources used for this analysis:* FDA Guidance: Patient Preference Information - Voluntary Submission, Review in Premarket Approval Applications, Humanitarian Device Exemption Applications, and De Novo Requests, and Inclusion in Decision Summaries and Device Labeling (Issued March 30, 2026).* P230044, Sequana Medical N.V., alfapump® System, Approved December 2024. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit naveenagarwalphd.substack.com/subscribe

Summary“AI brings novel risks and addressing them will require a more creative approach to human factors engineering.”In this Let’s Talk Risk! conversation, host Naveen Agarwal speaks with Jonathan Kendler, a seasoned medical device human factors and UI design consultant, about how artificial intelligence is changing the practice of usability engineering in MedTech. Jonathan brings a rare perspective to the discussion, blending decades of experience in user interface design, human factors, and medical device development.The conversation explores a central tension facing the industry today: while AI introduces new interaction patterns, trust challenges, and potential safety risks, the core responsibility remains unchanged - understand the user, understand the context of use, and design for safe, effective human interaction. Jonathan also shares where he sees real promise, including AI-supported training, surgical planning, and stronger cross-functional collaboration across risk, quality, regulatory, engineering, and human factors teams.Listen to the full 30-minute podcast or jump to a section of interest listed below. Chapters00:00 Introduction02:53 Why AI changes the environment, but not the fundamentals of human factors05:46 Transparency, over-reliance, and helping clinicians stay vigilant09:36 AI-strengthened training and the shift from training to competence13:19 Promising AI use cases, especially in surgical planning and clinician support15:38 The future of human factors: creativity, collaboration, and new evaluation methods23:30 Jonathan’s upcoming workshop on advanced human factors and use-related risk26:45 Final takeaways: stay grounded in the user, fundamentals, and teamworkIf you enjoyed this podcast, consider subscribing to the Let’s Talk Risk! newsletter.Suggested links:LTR: Start Treating Human Factors as Science, Not Art.LTR: Understanding Human Factors for AR/VR Applications in MedTech.LTR: LTR Risk Coach - AI-Powered Decision Support Tool.Key Takeaways* AI-enabled devices do not eliminate the need for strong human factors fundamentals; they make them more important.* One of the biggest emerging risks is lack of transparency around what the AI is doing and how users should interpret its output.* Accuracy alone is not enough; teams must design for the reality that AI can fail and users must remain appropriately vigilant.* AI may create meaningful opportunities to improve training, making it more interactive, adaptive, and competence-focused.* Some of the most promising applications of AI are those that strengthen clinician judgment rather than replace it.* Human factors professionals will need more creativity to anticipate novel use errors, misuse, and complex real-world interactions.* Conventional usability testing may not be enough for AI-enabled systems, especially when risks like habituation emerge over time.* The best outcomes will come from closer collaboration across human factors, engineering, risk management, quality, regulatory, and safety teams.KeywordsHuman factors, usability engineering, AI in medical devices, machine learning, transparency, clinician vigilance, use-related risk, AI training, competence, surgical planning, usability testing, cross-functional collaborationAbout Jonathan KendlerJonathan Kendler is a medical device human factors and UI design consultant with more than 20 years of experience supporting the development of healthcare products, including dialysis machines, infusion pumps, glucose monitors, and patient monitoring systems. He is Principal Consultant at Curiolis and previously co-founded Wiklund Research & Design, which was later acquired by UL.Jonathan has authored numerous articles on usability engineering and co-authored Usability Testing of Medical Devices and Designing for Safe Use. He has also taught graduate-level courses in user interface design at Tufts University and delivered workshops and lectures on usability engineering across North America, Europe, and Asia.Let’s Talk Risk! with Dr. Naveen Agarwal is a bi-weekly live audio event on LinkedIn, where we talk about risk management related topics in a casual, informal way. Join us at 11:00 am EST every other Friday on LinkedIn.DisclaimerInformation and insights presented in this podcast are for educational purposes only, and not as legal advice. Views expressed by all speakers are their own and do not reflect those of their respective organizations.Parts of this article were created using AI-generated content, which was subsequently reviewed, edited, and fact-checked by the author to ensure accuracy and alignment with our standards. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit naveenagarwalphd.substack.com/subscribe

Summary“The clinical study is actually where your risk analysis is going to meet reality.”In this Let’s Talk Risk! conversation, host Naveen Agarwal speaks with Lavanya Ramnath, Senior Regulatory Affairs Specialist at Insulet, about what it really takes to prepare for an IDE and why early-phase risk work is far more than a documentation exercise. Drawing on her experience in diabetes technology, SaMD, and closed-loop systems, Lavanya explains how regulatory, clinical, engineering, and usability thinking must come together long before a device ever reaches a patient.The conversation also goes deeper than process. Lavanya shares the personal connection that drew her into MedTech, how family experiences with diabetes and cardiac disease shaped her career, and why she approaches device development with a simple principle: build as if it were intended for your own family. From significant-risk judgments and feasibility studies to alarm design, human factors, and mentorship, this episode is a thoughtful reminder that good regulatory work is ultimately about real people, real uncertainty, and real consequences.Listen to the full 30-minute podcast or jump to a section of interest listed below. Chapters00:00 Introduction03:23 The personal story behind Lavanya’s commitment to MedTech05:01 What an IDE is and why it matters07:53 When companies decide they need an IDE09:08 Significant vs. non-significant risk in early clinical development12:36 In silico testing, risk analysis, and the three buckets of risk work16:07 Human factors, usability, and improving confidence in risk judgments19:00 Alarm design, patient preference, standards, and practical tradeoffs20:49 Learning regulatory on the job and the role of mentorship25:40 Final takeaways: patient focus, study design, and risk as strategyIf you enjoyed this podcast, consider subscribing to the Let’s Talk Risk! newsletter.Suggested links:LTR: Decoding Privacy Laws in Clinical Research.LTR: A Patient Centric Approach to Medical Device R&D.LTR: A 90-Day Plan to Review QMSR Readiness.Key Takeaways* An IDE is not a marketing authorization. It is the permission to study a device in humans, and it often begins much earlier in development than many teams expect.* Early risk work is a judgment exercise under uncertainty. Teams must assess whether a device could cause serious harm even before every failure mode is fully known.* Risk analysis should not stop at a table. Lavanya frames it as a broader strategy spanning system hazards, component-level failure analysis, and an overall residual-risk rationale.* Clinical studies are where risk analysis meets reality. They help confirm whether residual risk is truly acceptable in real-world use.* Human factors matters directly to safety. User behavior, interface design, age, familiarity with technology, and real-use conditions all shape risk.* Good design requires balancing competing needs. The insulin pump alarm example shows the tension between patient preference, safety urgency, and standards compliance.* Regulatory growth happens through cross-functional learning. Lavanya emphasizes partnering with other functions, asking questions, and staying open to how the full product puzzle fits together.* Mentorship can accelerate confidence and visibility. The episode closes with a strong message about seeking mentors, giving back, and finding your voice in the profession.KeywordsIDE, Investigational Device Exemption, clinical trials, risk management, ISO 14971, human factors, IEC 62366, usability engineering, insulin pumps, SaMD, digital health, regulatory affairs, benefit-risk, design controls, mentorshipAbout Lavanya RamnathLavanya Ramnath is a Senior Regulatory Affairs Specialist at Insulet, where she supports U.S. new product development for SaMD and closed-loop insulin delivery systems, including feasibility and pivotal clinical studies, IDE submissions, and FDA interactions. She has also contributed to indication expansion work for Omnipod 5 and supports broader regulatory documentation, process improvement, and global compliance activities.Previously, Lavanya held regulatory roles at Abbott, CR Bard, and Medtronic, building experience across the full device lifecycle for both low- and high-risk devices in U.S., EU, and international markets. A biomedical engineer by training, she is especially passionate about helping bring safe, effective, and innovative devices to patients worldwide — a mission shaped by personal family experiences with diabetes and cardiac disease.Let’s Talk Risk! with Dr. Naveen Agarwal is a bi-weekly live audio event on LinkedIn, where we talk about risk management related topics in a casual, informal way. Join us at 11:00 am EST every other Friday on LinkedIn.DisclaimerInformation and insights presented in this podcast are for educational purposes only, and not as legal advice. Views expressed by all speakers are their own and do not reflect those of their respective organizations.Parts of this article were cre

Summary“Test, test, test - and don’t accept the outcome unless you’re fairly confident in the level of uncertainty that remains.”Companion diagnostics (CDx) are inherently high-consequence because they can directly shape treatment decisions. That reality drives a higher bar for clarity: intended use boundaries, evidence expectations, and tight specificity in what the test is claiming and for whom.In this Let’s Talk Risk! conversation, host Naveen Agarwal sits down with Chris Daly to discuss how AI is transforming the MedTech landscape, including CDx, and how FDA’s expectations are evolving in this area. Chris emphasizes anchoring on the clinical question, using AI as a tool (not a vague strategy), and making uncertainty explicit: not “can we explain everything,” but “how much uncertainty is acceptable for this intended use?”Listen to the full 30-minute podcast or jump to a section of interest listed below. Chapters00:00 2026 context: uncertainty is rising; fundamentals matter 05:00 CDx basics: why CDx is different (and higher-stakes) 07:05 AI/ML + diagnostics: define the question, bound the tool 09:40 Explainability vs uncertainty: “how much confidence is enough?” 14:10 The human factor: vigilance and better questions 18:10 FDA and CDx: what “evolving approach” may signal 21:30 Dataset boundaries, bias, and representativeness as safety issues 25:40 Closing: adapting to rapid AI rise through discipline + alignment If you enjoyed this podcast, consider subscribing to the Let’s Talk Risk! newsletter.Suggested links:LTR: Three Pillars for Defining Your IVD Risk Management Strategy.LTR: Responsible AI and Future of MedTech Safety.FDA: Companion Diagnostics.Key Takeaways* CDx is high-stakes by design. If the test can steer therapy, FDA (and clinicians) will demand tighter specificity on intended use, population, and claims.* The real compliance challenge is uncertainty, not buzzwords. Move the discussion from “can you explain it?” to “how confident are we, and what uncertainty are we accepting for this use?”* Adjusting to AI’s rise means upgrading the team’s habits. Better questions, tougher validation, and active skepticism are the guardrails, especially when outputs can be wrong or misleading.* Your training data defines your safety boundary. If the dataset doesn’t represent the real population/use context, we should not be surprised by bias and performance gaps in the real world.* FDA’s CDx posture is evolving, but rigor isn’t going away. Reclassification signals pathway experimentation, * AI readiness is cross-functional risk governance. The winners align science, quality, regulatory, and commercial goals around shared definitions, shared uncertainty, and shared decision logic.KeywordsCompanion diagnostics (CDx), AI/ML diagnostics, FDA CDx policy, reclassification, intended use, uncertainty, explainability, bias, lifecycle control, vigilance.About Chris DalyChris Daly is a healthcare and life science executive and Principal at IronLine Consulting, where he helps emerging medical device manufacturers build regulatory and commercialization strategies for diagnostic products, especially companion diagnostics (CDx) and AI/ML-enabled solutions. He has supported FDA submissions, including successful clearances in infectious disease and software-as-a-medical-device (SaMD), and works with teams on quality system development across device companies, diagnostic labs, and independent diagnostic testing facilities. Before IronLine, Chris served as Chief Operating Officer of Total Child Health (CHADIS), a web-based screening and clinical management platform that uses pre-visit questionnaires to help clinicians streamline care and improve diagnosis and management of pediatric health, emotional, and behavioral concerns.Let’s Talk Risk! with Dr. Naveen Agarwal is a bi-weekly live audio event on LinkedIn, where we talk about risk management related topics in a casual, informal way. Join us at 11:00 am EST every other Friday on LinkedIn.DisclaimerInformation and insights presented in this podcast are for educational purposes only, and not as legal advice. Views expressed by all speakers are their own and do not reflect those of their respective organizations.Parts of this article were created using AI-generated content, which was subsequently reviewed, edited, and fact-checked by the author to ensure accuracy and alignment with our standards. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit naveenagarwalphd.substack.com/subscribe

Summary“Look at how benefits and risks are allocated among different design options and pick a product architecture that minimizes risks and maximizes benefits.”In this Let’s Talk Risk! conversation, Richard Matt shares a simple but uncomfortable observation: most organizations do risk “correctly” on paper, but too late to matter. By the time the DFMEA/PFMEA is polished, key architecture decisions are already locked, so risk management becomes cleanup, not guidance.His most valuable takeaway is the shift upstream: start with the treatment plan, write down the expected benefits and plausible risks early, and iterate them as the design evolves. When benefits are made explicit, you stop treating risk as a single independent variable and start using benefit–risk as a practical decision engine for design tradeoffs.Listen to the full 30-minute podcast or jump to a section of interest listed below. Chapters00:00 Welcome and Introduction01:04 Risk focus in QMSR04:50 Risk as an input to design05:33 Why FMEA alone is not sufficient10:33 Consider both benefits and risks early in design20:43 Audience questions24:30 Closing remarksIf you enjoyed this podcast, consider subscribing to the Let’s Talk Risk! newsletter.Suggested links:LTR: Allison Komiyama on Rethinking Benefit-Risk in MedTech.LTR: Benefit-Risk Evaluation of an AI/ML Enabled Device.LTR: An Ideal Medical Device.Key Takeaways* Use benefit–risk early, not as an afterthought. Start at the treatment-plan/concept phase so benefit and harm shape architecture decisions before they’re hard to change.* Make “benefit” explicit and usable. If you only optimize against harm, you can unintentionally degrade clinical value; benefit must be part of the design tradeoff logic from day one.* FMEA is necessary, but often too late to drive architecture. Treat it as confirmation and refinement—not the first time risk influences design.* Replace ad hoc early risk with a lightweight upstream method. A simple evolving list of benefits, risks, and the design choices they drove can outperform a “perfect” late-stage file.* QMSR will expose weak integration between risk and design controls. The compliance work is not the hard part—the hard part is showing risk actually shaped the design.KeywordsQMSR, ISO 13485, ISO 14971, design controls, risk-based thinking, DFMEA/PFMEA limits, hazards & hazardous situations, benefit–risk, early design inputs, architecture decisions, process validation (OQ/PQ), iterative development.About Richard MattRichard Matt is Principal Consultant at Aspen Medical Risk Consulting, with over 30 years of experience in product development, quality engineering, and risk management. He specializes in innovative methods for benefit–risk assessment, FMEA, and integrated product development, helping medical device companies strengthen compliance and improve patient safety.He is also the inventor of a patented “risk algebra” approach that enables clear, defensible comparisons of benefit and risk, a breakthrough with wide implications for devices, biologics, and combination products.Let’s Talk Risk! with Dr. Naveen Agarwal is a bi-weekly live audio event on LinkedIn, where we talk about risk management related topics in a casual, informal way. Join us at 11:00 am EST every other Friday on LinkedIn.DisclaimerInformation and insights presented in this podcast are for educational purposes only, and not as legal advice. Views expressed by all speakers are their own and do not reflect those of their respective organizations.Parts of this article were created using AI-generated content, which was subsequently reviewed, edited, and fact-checked by the author to ensure accuracy and alignment with our standards. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit naveenagarwalphd.substack.com/subscribe

Summary“A company can become world class the day the quality team decides.”In this Let’s Talk Risk! conversation, host Naveen Agarwal engages with Ganesh Sabat, former former CEO of Sahajanand Medical Technologies (SMT) and now Founder & Managing Partner of MedArtha Capital about a simple but hard truth: global scale in MedTech is earned through quality execution, not marketing narratives.Ganesh walks through SMT’s transformation from an innovative startup into a globally recognized cardiovascular device company, then zooms out to India’s broader MedTech ambition. We unpack what’s missing (talent depth, shared learning, true design ownership), what’s emerging (incubation + device parks + incentives), and why quality leaders are the real “make-or-break” force behind India’s credibility on the world stage.Listen to the full 30-minute podcast or jump to a section of interest listed below. Chapters00:00 Welcome and Introduction02:09 SMT story: from “innovative startup” to global scale04:54 The turning point: why Ganesh bet on quality as the growth lever06:13 What investors demanded: proof, discipline, and scalable systems08:39 India ecosystem reality: pharma-quality mindset vs device-grade rigor11:22 “Quality as a system”: building defect prevention into process + design15:21 Building the ecosystem: why shared learning + capability depth matter18:58 Challenges and opportunities for MedTech startup21:02 Achieving global success not through low-cost but high quality24:25 Closing remarksIf you enjoyed this podcast, consider subscribing to the Let’s Talk Risk! newsletter.Suggested links:LTR: What QA/RA Professionals Need to Know About MedTech in India.LTR: Navigating the Regulatory Landscape for SaMD in India.LTR: Atty Chakraborty on India’s Rising MedTech Sector.Key Takeaways* Quality isn’t a checkpoint at the end. It’s a design-and-system discipline built upstream.* SMT’s scaling story is framed as “investing in quality,” then validating it through clinical proof and execution rigor.* Customer trust and investor confidence converge on the same requirement: consistent, reliable quality (and safety) at global standards.* India’s MedTech ecosystem is growing rapidly, but limited depth of specialized quality talent slows the curve.* Moving from pharma-style quality to device-grade quality requires engineering capability, process ownership, and design mastery.* Many early-stage companies need more than capital. They need experienced, operator-led “corridor finding” through regulatory + commercialization complexity.* Device parks and incentives can accelerate manufacturing and scale, but credibility still hinges on execution discipline.* Ganesh’s closing challenge is direct: quality teams hold the leverage to make companies—and countries—world class.KeywordsQuality culture; design controls; engineering-led quality; global scale-up; cardiovascular devices; stents; clinical evidence; India MedTech; regulatory rigor; manufacturing excellence.About Ganesh SabatGanesh Sabat is is the Founder & Managing Partner of MedArtha Capital, an visionary investment platform backing MedTech, medical device, and digital healthcare companies emerging from India and scaling globally.Previously, Ganesh spent ~15+ years as a senior executive, most recently as CEO of Sahajanand Medical Technologies (SMT), where he helped scale a highly regulated cardiovascular medical device business across innovation, manufacturing, quality, regulatory pathways, and international markets, building presence across 80+ countries and driving sustained growth.Let’s Talk Risk! with Dr. Naveen Agarwal is a bi-weekly live audio event on LinkedIn, where we talk about risk management related topics in a casual, informal way. Join us at 11:00 am EST every other Friday on LinkedIn.DisclaimerInformation and insights presented in this podcast are for educational purposes only, and not as legal advice. Views expressed by all speakers are their own and do not reflect those of their respective organizations.Parts of this article were created using AI-generated content, which was subsequently reviewed, edited, and fact-checked by the author to ensure accuracy and alignment with our standards. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit naveenagarwalphd.substack.com/subscribe

Summary“You don’t want to be implementing QMSR while the FDA is waiting in the lobby.”As the FDA transitions from the Quality System Regulation (QSR) to the new Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR), confusion persists across the MedTech industry. Is ISO 13485 certification enough? Does MDSAP cover everything? What exactly will FDA inspectors expect?In this episode of the Let’s Talk Risk Podcast, host Naveen Agarwal sits down with Holly Cotter to talk about what this transition really means for manufacturers, especially startups and U.S.-only companies.Holly brings a rare perspective: biomedical engineer, hands-on clinical experience, global regulatory consultant, and community builder. Together, we unpack not just regulatory changes — but the leadership opportunity QMSR presents for quality and regulatory professionals.Chapters00:00 Introduction and QMSR transition02:25 Explicit vs. implied changes under QMSR06:00 Risk beyond design validation: FDA’s broader lens09:30 Inspection uncertainty: Q-SIT, guidance gaps, and readiness11:35 MDSAP alignment: what it covers — and what it doesn’t14:00 The Quality Plan: your most practical readiness tool20:10 Dangerous assumptions about ISO 13485 certification25:40 indieMedTech: building community in MedTechIf you enjoyed this podcast, consider subscribing to the Let’s Talk Risk! newsletter.Suggested links:* LTR: QMSR Readiness, Risk-Based Assurance and FDA Expectations.* LTR: 90-Day QMSR Readiness Action Pan for Leaders.* LTR: FDA Readiness for QMSR.Key Takeaways* ISO 13485 certification ≠ automatic QMSR compliance* Risk-based thinking must extend across the entire quality system* Internal audits and management reviews will face deeper FDA scrutiny* MDSAP is helpful, but not sufficient* A simple, well-structured Quality Plan demonstrates leadership and readiness* QMSR presents a strategic opportunity for QARA professionalsKeywordsQMSR, FDA Quality System Regulation, ISO 13485, Risk-Based Thinking, MDSAP, FDA Inspection Readiness, Quality Plan, CAPA, Supplier Controls, MedTech LeadershipAbout Holly CotterHolly Cotter is a a biomedical engineer turned regulatory strategist with hands-on clinical roots and global MedTech experience. She has led regulatory, quality, and clinical initiatives across startups, large manufacturers, and consulting environments, with deep expertise in EU MDR, post-market surveillance, PMCF strategy, and FDA compliance.Holly is also the Co-Founder of indieMedTech, a growing professional platform dedicated to connecting and empowering MedTech leaders. Through her consulting work and community building, she is helping companies navigate complex regulatory transitions - including the shift to QMSR - with clarity, structure, and risk-based thinking.DisclaimerInformation and insights presented in this podcast are for educational purposes only. Views expressed by all speakers are their own and do not reflect those of their respective organizations.Parts of this article were created using AI-generated content, which was subsequently reviewed, edited, and fact-checked by the author to ensure accuracy and alignment with our standards. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit naveenagarwalphd.substack.com/subscribe

Summary“Risks occur. They happen but they don’t exist… hazards do.”In this Let’s Talk Risk! conversation, host Naveen Agarwal sits with Jean Blom, a QMS & Audit Specialist and risk management trainer with deep experience across ISO 13485 auditing, ISO 14971 risk management (including usability), and certification/accreditation perspectives.Our conversation is deliberately informal and highly practical. We explore why many teams get stuck in the mechanics of risk tools (especially large, bottom-up FMEAs), and how a shift toward hazard-first thinking can make risk management more tangible, especially for startups, early-career professionals, and teams working on diagnostic and software-driven devices.Listen to the full 30-minute podcast or jump to a section of interest listed below. Chapters00:01 Introduction to Jean’s start in risk management02:45 Linear standards vs. real-world complexity05:20 Indirect harm in diagnostic and AI devices07:10 Risk management for start up and early career professionals10:30 Risks don’t exist, hazards do 13:20 Role of examples in risk management16:45 Risk information outside of risk management team 18:00 Why FMEAs fail at the executive view20:20 Risk management competence development21:00 Seek to be understood 23:40 Teaching risk without jargon26:40 From getting it right to not getting it wrongIf you enjoyed this podcast, consider subscribing to the Let’s Talk Risk! newsletter.Suggested links:LTR: Why FMEA Alone is Not Sufficient for Risk Analysis.LTR: Three Pillars for Defining Your IVD Risk Management Strategy.LTR: Focus on Intended Use for IVD Risk Management.Key Takeaways* When just starting with risk management, begin with hazards: they are tangible and controllable; “risk” is an outcome.* Standards provide structure, but real-world risk is non-linear and contextual.* Diagnostic and AI devices shift risk focus from physical harm to information.* The instructions for many legacy risk tools (like FMEA) were built for projects and missions, not full lifecycle thinking.* Large FMEAs, even summarized, do not provide meaningful executive insight.* Jargon blocks learning; effective training must be adapted to experience level.* Risk capability evolves: from first learning to get it right, to continue training to not being able to get it wrong.KeywordsHazards, Hazardous Situations, ISO 14971, ISO 13485, Risk Management Training, FMEA Limitations, Diagnostic Device Risk, Usability Engineering, ISO 62366-1, Systems Thinking, Benefit–Risk, Risk Communication, Startup QMSAbout Jean BlomJean Blom is Netherlands-based QMS & Audit Specialist and Quality Manager (Medical Devices) with extensive experience guiding teams through ISO 13485 quality systems, auditing (ISO 19011), and ISO 14971 risk management, including usability. He has served as a Technical Assessor/Technical Expert for ISO 17021-1 accreditation activities related to ISO 13485 certification bodies and has supported global QMS compliance across multiple markets and device types.Let’s Talk Risk! with Dr. Naveen Agarwal is a bi-weekly live audio event on LinkedIn, where we talk about risk management related topics in a casual, informal way. Join us at 11:00 am EST every Friday on LinkedIn.DisclaimerInformation and insights presented in this podcast are for educational purposes only, and not as legal advice. Views expressed by all speakers are their own and do not reflect those of their respective organizations.Parts of this article were created using AI-generated content, which was subsequently reviewed, edited, and fact-checked by the author to ensure accuracy and alignment with our standards. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit naveenagarwalphd.substack.com/subscribe

Summary“Management review is no longer a check-the-box exercise. It’s the most powerful lever leaders have to drive proactive quality.”In this episode of the Let’s Talk Risk Podcast, Naveen Agarwal sits down with Jennifer Mascioli-Tudor, an experienced Quality and Regulatory leader, to unpack what QMSR readiness really means in practice.Jennifer shares what she’s seeing across the industry, from companies that are fully prepared to those that haven’t started, and explains why being ISO 13485 certified is not enough. The conversation dives deep into FDA inspection behavior, closed-loop risk management, management review as a leadership tool (not a formality), and the very real consequences of reactive quality systems.This episode is a must-listen for quality, regulatory, and executive leaders who want to move beyond compliance and build proactive, inspection-ready organizations.Chapters00:00 Welcome and Introduction02:20 ISO 13485 vs FDA inspections: where assumptions break down03:40 Closed-loop risk management across the total product lifecycle05:40 How FDA uses complaints, CAPA, and trends to escalate inspections09:35 Leadership mindset shift: from reactive fixes to proactive quality11:35 Management review as a strategic decision-making forum20:25 Inspection readiness as culture, practice, and people, not paperworkIf you enjoyed this podcast, consider subscribing to the Let’s Talk Risk! newsletter.Suggested links:* LTR: QMSR Readiness, Risk-Based Assurance and FDA Expectations.* LTR: 90-Day QMSR Readiness Action Pan for Leaders.* LTR: FDA Readiness for QMSR.Key Takeaways* Don’t wait for FDA to expose your gaps, identify and document them yourself* Treat QMSR as a strategic initiative, not a quality department project* Use management review to drive real discussion, decisions, and accountability* Focus on the critical few metrics, not dozens of unprioritized indicators* Train SMEs and cross-functional leaders to speak confidently about risk* Practice inspection scenarios before FDA shows up, not during the inspectionKeywordsQMSR, FDA inspection readiness, closed-loop risk management, ISO 13485, management review, risk-based decision making, proactive quality, trend escalation, cross-functional accountability, total product lifecycleAbout Jennifer Mascioli-TudorJennifer Mascioli-Tudor is currently the Founder and Principal Consultant at JMT Compliance Consulting offering consultant services to MedTech organizations in business, regulatory and quality management strategy. She is also an instructor at UC San Diego where she teaches regulatory fundamentals and design controls. Her industry experience includes leadership roles at J&J, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and GE Healthcare. She holds a BSc from Eastern Michigan University, an MBA in Global Management, and is an ASQ Certified Quality Auditor.DisclaimerInformation and insights presented in this podcast are for educational purposes only. Views expressed by all speakers are their own and do not reflect those of their respective organizations.Parts of this article were created using AI-generated content, which was subsequently reviewed, edited, and fact-checked by the author to ensure accuracy and alignment with our standards. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit naveenagarwalphd.substack.com/subscribe

Summary“For years, clinical evaluations were mostly a story. What was missing were clearly defined outcome parameters, something measurable that connects the state of the art to benefit–risk conclusions.”In this Let’s Talk Risk! conversation, host Naveen Agarwal welcomes back Florian Tolkmitt, Managing Director of Pro-Liance Global Solutions, for a timely and highly practical discussion on clinical evaluation for medical devices.The conversation centers on the newly released draft ISO standard for clinical evaluation (ISO/DIS 18969), why it was developed, and what problem it is trying to solve. Florian shares first-hand insight from his role in the ISO working group, highlighting common industry misunderstandings, especially around outcome parameters, state of the art, and the linkage between clinical evaluation and ISO 14971 risk management.Together, Naveen and Florian unpack new terminology such as clinical risk, clinical outcome parameters, and available knowledge, clarifying how these concepts are meant to sharpen focus on patient-relevant benefit–risk decisions without overloading clinical evaluation with non-clinical risk data. The episode closes with practical reflections on how manufacturers, especially those struggling with EU MDR expectations, can use this process standard to strengthen their clinical evaluation approach.Listen to the full 30-minute podcast or jump to a section of interest listed below. Chapters00:00 Welcome and introduction to the topic of clinical evaluation01:25 What companies still get wrong about clinical evaluation03:10 Overview of the new ISO/DIS 18969 draft standard05:30 Why the standard is process-focused, not regulatory06:20 ISO 14971 as a normative reference and the idea of “clinical risk”10:20 State of the art vs. “available knowledge”17:40 Clinical outcome parameters and measurable benefit–risk25:00 Why this standard matters and who will benefit mostIf you enjoyed this podcast, consider subscribing to the Let’s Talk Risk! newsletter.Suggested links:LTR: Clinical Evaluation Now More Important Than Ever Under EU-MDR.LTR: Smart Use of AI for Clinical Evaluation.LTR: Clinical Evaluation a Lifecycle Process Not a One Time Activity.Key Takeaways* Clinical evaluation is not a narrative exercise, it must be outcome-driven.* Not all risks belong in clinical evaluation; patient-relevant risks do.* Outcome parameters should be derived from state of the art, not after the fact.* The new ISO draft aims to harmonize global practice without reinventing regulations.* A strong clinical evaluation process improves both regulatory confidence and decision quality.KeywordsClinical Evaluation, ISO/DIS 18969, Risk Management, ISO 14971, EU MDR, Clinical Risk, Benefit–Risk Assessment, State of the Art, Post-Market Surveillance, Medical Device RegulationAbout Florian TolkmittFlorian Tolkmitt is the founder and owner of PRO-LIANCE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS GmbH providing consulting services in all aspects of clinical evaluation, regulatory affairs, risk and quality management. He is an expert in clinical evaluation, post-market clinical follow up and post-market reporting compliance. As a co-founder and board member of RAPS Deutschland e.V., he is very active in the regulatory community sharing his expertise and mentoring industry colleagues.Let’s Talk Risk! with Dr. Naveen Agarwal is a bi-weekly live audio event on LinkedIn, where we talk about risk management related topics in a casual, informal way. Join us at 11:00 am EST every Friday on LinkedIn.DisclaimerInformation and insights presented in this podcast are for educational purposes only, and not as legal advice. Views expressed by all speakers are their own and do not reflect those of their respective organizations.Parts of this article were created using AI-generated content, which was subsequently reviewed, edited, and fact-checked by the author to ensure accuracy and alignment with our standards. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit naveenagarwalphd.substack.com/subscribe