The Arab Experts’ OfficeArab Union of the Manufacturers of Pharmaceuticals and Medical Appliances

AUPAM / MEDICAL DEVICES & SUPPLIES

Learn the principle. Practise the decision.

Twelve short modules with source-linked explanations, practical tasks and 24 original scenarios. Work at your own pace and keep your learning record.

58curated sources
12learning modules
8worksheets
Home/Medical devices/Learning academy
Start with the explanation and original sources, answer the two scenarios, then complete the practical task. The cases are fictional training exercises. This self-study collection does not award accreditation or a legal professional designation.
01

Define the device before choosing a pathway

Write an intended-use statement that can anchor your evidence file.

Self-paced

A device pathway depends on its intended use and jurisdiction. A quality certificate, establishment registration and product authorization answer different questions. Use the original regulator record for the precise product and scope.

1. A supplier shows an ISO 13485 certificate. Does it establish authorization for every device in every country?
2. A home-use claim is added to a device previously intended for hospital staff. What should the team do first?
Try it in practice: Record intended user, patient group, setting, claim and market in the device-profile template. Open the workspace ↗
02

Build a standards applicability matrix

Connect each applicable standard to its edition, scope and evidence.

Self-paced

Check the regulator’s recognition or harmonisation record, including any limits. A standard number without an edition and scope is an incomplete reference. ASCA participation also requires checking the laboratory’s current status.

1. A report says only “tested to IEC 60601”. What is the best follow-up?
2. A laboratory was listed last year. Is that enough for a new ASCA submission?
Try it in practice: Complete one row of the standards register with a source link and a test-report identifier. Open the workspace ↗
03

Review biological safety of the finished device

Recognise when a materials statement leaves an evidence gap.

Self-paced

Biocompatibility assessment considers the finished device and its contact with the body. Manufacturing, sterilisation and residuals can matter. The evidence must fit the nature and duration of contact; a raw-material certificate alone may not address the finished product.

1. A catheter uses the same polymer but a new coating. Can the team automatically reuse the old conclusion?
2. Which information best frames the initial assessment?
Try it in practice: Map patient-contacting parts, processing changes and evidence identifiers. Open the workspace ↗
04

Separate cleaning from sterilisation evidence

Spot an unsupported claim in a reusable-device validation package.

Self-paced

Reprocessing must address the particular device and its instructions. Complex channels and joints can retain soil. Cleaning validation should use a relevant challenge and measure suitable residual soil; spore reduction alone is not a substitute for demonstrating cleaning.

1. A reusable instrument has only a sterilisation report. Is cleaning thereby demonstrated?
2. A new narrow channel was excluded from the test. What is missing?
Try it in practice: List the worst-case features and locate the corresponding validation evidence. Open the workspace ↗
05

Examine the user, setting and interface

Turn a use-error scenario into a focused evidence question.

Self-paced

Human-factors work connects users, use environments and interfaces. Relevant users may include patients, caregivers and staff who set up, maintain or reprocess the device. Labelling and training are part of the interface, not the whole interface.

1. A display was tested only in a quiet office, but its intended setting is a busy ward. What needs review?
2. Can a manual alone resolve every use-related risk?
Try it in practice: Write one critical task, a plausible use error and the evidence needed to evaluate it. Open the workspace ↗
06

Connect the claim to clinical evidence

Frame evidence around the intended population, use and outcomes.

Self-paced

Clinical investigations assess device safety and performance; IVD performance studies address diagnostic performance. A registry record helps locate a study, but it does not by itself establish a favourable result or authorize a product.

1. A registered study has no results posted. What can you conclude?
2. Evidence is from adults in hospital; the proposed claim is for children at home. What should be documented?
Try it in practice: Record the claim, population, comparator, outcome, limitations and source in an evidence row. Open the workspace ↗
07

Ask the right diagnostic-evidence questions

Organise an IVD evidence review without relying on a single accuracy headline.

Self-paced

Use a transparent diagnostic-study report to examine the intended use, participants, test and reference standard. Reporting guidance helps reveal missing information; it does not replace critical appraisal or the applicable IVDR requirements.

1. A brochure states “99% accurate” without the population or reference method. What is needed?
2. Does a completed reporting checklist prove low risk of bias?
Try it in practice: Record sample type, target population, reference method and performance limitations. Open the workspace ↗
08

Review software and cybersecurity changes

Link software changes to evidence and regulatory review.

Self-paced

Software evidence depends on the device’s functions and intended use. Use current guidance to examine lifecycle documentation and cybersecurity. An AI authorization list is a starting point: the individual record defines the authorized device and scope.

1. An algorithm is retrained on a new population. What is the useful first record?
2. A product appears on an AI-device list. Does that authorize every AI function a supplier advertises?
Try it in practice: Use the change-impact template to link a proposed modification, affected claims and verification evidence. Open the workspace ↗
09

Read a safety signal responsibly

Distinguish a report, a signal and a confirmed corrective action.

Self-paced

MAUDE reports can be incomplete, unverified or biased. Counts alone cannot establish incidence, compare device event rates or demonstrate causation. Read signals alongside the official alert and other evidence.

1. Device A has 40 reports and B has 20, with no usage denominator. Which statement is supported?
2. A recall names specified lots. How should a receiving team record the issue?
Try it in practice: Link the official alert, model, lot or serial scope, required action and local follow-up. Open the workspace ↗
10

Purchase a usable lifecycle, not just a unit

Turn the purchasing specification into a verifiable acceptance plan.

Self-paced

Procurement planning should connect the clinical need with technical requirements and the resources needed to use the device. Include installation, training, consumables and service when comparing options. Our cost worksheet is an editable planning model, not a price quotation.

1. The lowest-price analyser requires a proprietary consumable absent locally. What should change?
2. A device arrives without the agreed commissioning evidence. What belongs in the acceptance record?
Try it in practice: Use the supplier worksheet and the lifecycle-cost calculator, recording every assumption. Open the workspace ↗
11

Connect inventory, service and end of life

Build a usable asset record for clinical engineering.

Self-paced

A maintenance programme includes inspection, preventive work and corrective work. Link records to a unique asset, its use and service history. Decommissioning needs an explicit decision and documented process rather than simply deleting an inventory row.

1. Two identical models are installed in different departments. What helps avoid mixing their service records?
2. Equipment is removed permanently from service. What is the better record action?
Try it in practice: Draft one asset record with service evidence, a next review and an owner. Open the workspace ↗
12

Make a literature search reproducible

Create a transparent search and screening log.

Self-paced

Record the database, exact strategy, date and screening decisions. Use reporting guidance appropriate to the review and study design. A search result is a candidate source: read the full study and appraise its relevance and limitations before using its conclusions.

1. A search found 80 records. Can the team call them 80 included studies immediately?
2. Which note makes a search easier to reproduce?
Try it in practice: Build a search in the evidence workspace, then add one screened record to the evidence table. Open the workspace ↗

Continue with the source organisations.

CDRH Learn

Official learning modules across the device lifecycle.

Open training resources ↗

EMDN nomenclature & training

Explore the nomenclature, version information and official training materials.

Open training resources ↗

Choose a reporting guideline

Match the reporting checklist to the study design, including CONSORT, STROBE and STARD.

Open training resources ↗

Your reading list, learning progress and worksheets stay in this browser. They are not synced to your member account. Export a backup before changing devices or clearing browser data. Do not enter patient identifiers or confidential product information.

Stored on this browser only

Editorial review: 3 October 2026. Source publication dates and versions remain those of the original publishers.

From source to practice

Prepare your scientific review with clear steps

16 guides across quality, manufacture, registration, safety and research, with scope, source versions and saveable working checklists.