Medical device risk management specialist implementing ISO 14971 throughout product lifecycle. Provides risk analysis, risk evaluation, risk control, and post-production information analysis. Use when user mentions risk management, ISO 14971, risk analysis, FMEA, fault tree analysis, hazard identification, risk control, risk matrix, benefit-risk analysis, residual risk, risk acceptability, or post-market risk.
73
91%
Does it follow best practices?
Run evals on this skill
Adds up to 20 points to the overall score
View guide
Passed
No findings from the security scan
The canonical home for this skill is risk-management-specialist in alirezarezvani/claude-skills
ISO 14971:2019 risk management implementation throughout the medical device lifecycle.
Establish risk management process per ISO 14971.
| Section | Content | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Device and lifecycle coverage | Scope statement |
| Criteria | Risk acceptability matrix | Risk matrix document |
| Responsibilities | Roles and authorities | RACI chart |
| Verification | Methods and acceptance | Verification plan |
| Production/Post-Production | Monitoring activities | Surveillance plan |
| Probability \ Severity | Negligible | Minor | Serious | Critical | Catastrophic |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequent (P5) | Medium | High | High | Unacceptable | Unacceptable |
| Probable (P4) | Medium | Medium | High | High | Unacceptable |
| Occasional (P3) | Low | Medium | Medium | High | High |
| Remote (P2) | Low | Low | Medium | Medium | High |
| Improbable (P1) | Low | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
| Level | Acceptable | Action Required |
|---|---|---|
| Low | Yes | Document and accept; still reduce as far as possible (EU MDR) |
| Medium | After reduction AFAP | Reduce as far as possible; document why further reduction is impossible |
| High | After reduction AFAP | Reduction required; demonstrate all further options exhausted |
| Unacceptable | No | Design change mandatory |
EU MDR — AFAP, not ALARP: For CE-marked devices, risks must be reduced as far as possible (AFAP) without economic considerations (MDR Annex I, GSPR 1–4; EN ISO 14971:2019/A11:2021 Z-annexes deviation). ALARP ("as low as reasonably practicable"), which permits cost-benefit weighing in acceptability decisions, is not an acceptable criterion under the EU MDR — a notified body will flag it. ISO 14971:2019 itself removed ALARP from the normative text. ALARP may persist in some non-EU jurisdictions (e.g., the UK HSE tradition); if used outside the EU, flag the deviation from EU requirements explicitly.
Identify hazards and estimate risks systematically.
| Category | Examples | Analyzed |
|---|---|---|
| Electrical | Shock, burns, interference | ☐ |
| Mechanical | Crushing, cutting, entrapment | ☐ |
| Thermal | Burns, tissue damage | ☐ |
| Radiation | Ionizing, non-ionizing | ☐ |
| Biological | Infection, biocompatibility | ☐ |
| Chemical | Toxicity, irritation | ☐ |
| Software | Incorrect output, timing | ☐ |
| Use Error | Misuse, perception, cognition | ☐ |
| Environment | EMC, mechanical stress | ☐ |
| Situation | Recommended Method |
|---|---|
| Component failures | FMEA |
| System-level failure | FTA |
| Process deviations | HAZOP |
| User interaction | Use Error Analysis |
| Software behavior | Software FMEA |
| Early design phase | PHA |
| Level | Name | Description | Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| P5 | Frequent | Expected to occur | >10⁻³ |
| P4 | Probable | Likely to occur | 10⁻³ to 10⁻⁴ |
| P3 | Occasional | May occur | 10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁵ |
| P2 | Remote | Unlikely | 10⁻⁵ to 10⁻⁶ |
| P1 | Improbable | Very unlikely | <10⁻⁶ |
| Level | Name | Description | Harm |
|---|---|---|---|
| S5 | Catastrophic | Death | Death |
| S4 | Critical | Permanent impairment | Irreversible injury |
| S3 | Serious | Injury requiring intervention | Reversible injury |
| S2 | Minor | Temporary discomfort | No treatment needed |
| S1 | Negligible | Inconvenience | No injury |
See: references/risk-analysis-methods.md
Evaluate risks against acceptability criteria.
Risk Estimated
│
▼
Apply Acceptability Criteria
│
├── Low Risk ──────────► Accept and document
│
├── Medium Risk ───────► Reduce as far as possible (AFAP)
│ │ Document why further reduction impossible
│ ▼
│ Further reduction possible?
│ │
│ Yes──► Implement control
│ No───► Document AFAP rationale (no economic considerations)
│
├── High Risk ─────────► Risk reduction required
│ │ Must demonstrate reduction AFAP
│ ▼
│ Implement control
│ Verify residual risk
│
└── Unacceptable ──────► Design change mandatory
Cannot proceed without control| Criterion | Evidence Required |
|---|---|
| All control options considered | Analysis of every feasible control per the hierarchy (design, protective measures, information) |
| Further reduction impossible | Evidence each remaining option is technically infeasible or does not further reduce risk |
| State of the art | Comparison to similar devices and current standards |
| Stakeholder input | Clinical/user perspectives |
Economic considerations (cost of further risk reduction) must not enter the EU acceptability decision (MDR Annex I GSPR 2; EN ISO 14971:2019/A11:2021). Cost may inform business decisions about whether to market the device — never whether a risk is acceptable.
| Situation | Benefit-Risk Required |
|---|---|
| Residual risk remains high | Yes |
| No feasible risk reduction | Yes |
| Novel device | Yes |
| Unacceptable risk with clinical benefit | Yes |
| All risks low | No |
Implement and verify risk control measures.
| Priority | Control Type | Examples | Effectiveness |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Inherent Safety | Eliminate hazard, fail-safe design | Highest |
| 2 | Protective Measures | Guards, alarms, automatic shutdown | High |
| 3 | Information | Warnings, training, IFU | Lower |
RISK CONTROL OPTION ANALYSIS
Hazard ID: H-[XXX]
Hazard: [Description]
Initial Risk: P[X] × S[X] = [Level]
OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
| Option | Control Type | New Hazards | Feasibility | Selected |
|--------|--------------|-------------|-------------|----------|
| 1 | [Type] | [Yes/No] | [H/M/L] | [Yes/No] |
| 2 | [Type] | [Yes/No] | [H/M/L] | [Yes/No] |
SELECTED CONTROL: Option [X]
Rationale: [Justification for selection]
IMPLEMENTATION:
- Requirement: [REQ-XXX]
- Design Document: [Reference]
VERIFICATION:
- Method: [Test/Analysis/Review]
- Protocol: [Reference]
- Acceptance Criteria: [Criteria]| Method | When to Use | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Test | Quantifiable performance | Test report |
| Inspection | Physical presence | Inspection record |
| Analysis | Design calculation | Analysis report |
| Review | Documentation check | Review record |
| After Control | Action |
|---|---|
| Acceptable | Document, proceed |
| Reduced AFAP | Document rationale (no economic considerations), proceed |
| Still unacceptable | Additional control or design change |
| New hazard introduced | Analyze and control new hazard |
Monitor and update risk management throughout product lifecycle.
| Source | Information Type | Review Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| Complaints | Use issues, failures | Continuous |
| Service | Field failures, repairs | Monthly |
| Vigilance | Serious incidents | Immediate |
| Literature | Similar device issues | Quarterly |
| Regulatory | Authority feedback | As received |
| Clinical | PMCF data | Per plan |
| Trigger | Response Time | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Serious incident | Immediate | Full risk review |
| New hazard identified | 30 days | Risk analysis update |
| Trend increase | 60 days | Trend analysis |
| Design change | Before implementation | Impact assessment |
| Standards update | Per transition period | Gap analysis |
| Review Element | Frequency |
|---|---|
| Risk management file completeness | Annual |
| Risk control effectiveness | Annual |
| Post-market information analysis | Quarterly |
| Risk-benefit conclusions | Annual or on new data |
→ See references/risk-assessment-templates.md for details
What is the risk level?
│
├── Unacceptable ──► Can hazard be eliminated?
│ │
│ Yes─┴─No
│ │ │
│ ▼ ▼
│ Eliminate Can protective
│ hazard measure reduce?
│ │
│ Yes─┴─No
│ │ │
│ ▼ ▼
│ Add Add warning
│ protection + training
│
└── High/Medium ──► Apply hierarchy
starting at Level 1| Question | If Yes | If No |
|---|---|---|
| Does control introduce new hazard? | Analyze new hazard | Proceed |
| Is new risk higher than original? | Reject control option | Acceptable trade-off |
| Can new hazard be controlled? | Add control | Reject control option |
| Condition | Decision |
|---|---|
| All risks Low | Acceptable |
| Medium risks reduced AFAP | Acceptable |
| High risks reduced AFAP, documented | Acceptable if benefits outweigh |
| Any Unacceptable residual | Not acceptable - redesign |
| Tool | Purpose | Usage |
|---|---|---|
| risk_matrix_calculator.py | Calculate risk levels and FMEA RPN | python risk_matrix_calculator.py --help |
Risk Matrix Calculator Features:
| Document | Content |
|---|---|
| iso14971-implementation-guide.md | Complete ISO 14971:2019 implementation with templates |
| risk-analysis-methods.md | FMEA, FTA, HAZOP, Use Error Analysis methods |
| Stage | Key Activities | Output |
|---|---|---|
| Planning | Define scope, criteria, responsibilities | Risk Management Plan |
| Analysis | Identify hazards, estimate risk | Hazard Analysis |
| Evaluation | Compare to criteria, AFAP assessment (EU) | Risk Evaluation |
| Control | Implement hierarchy, verify | Risk Control Records |
| Residual | Overall assessment, benefit-risk | Risk Management Report |
| Production | Monitor, review, update | Updated RM File |
| Skill | Integration Point |
|---|---|
| quality-manager-qms-iso13485 | QMS integration |
| capa-officer | Risk-based CAPA |
| regulatory-affairs-head | Regulatory submissions |
| quality-documentation-manager | Risk file management |
19392f7
Canonical home
since Aug 28, 2026
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.