I had lunch in a restaurant the other day. During my meal, I noticed that there weren’t many other customers. I didn’t give it much thought until I walked out and read the restaurant’s hygiene grade (posted in its window for everyone to observe) was a “C”. Despite the frustration that I should have noticed the grade before I entered (d’oh!), not to mention concerns for my health (was that a roach burger with cheese I just woofed down?) my experience prompted some thoughts on FDA’s emerging Quality Metrics initiative.
There’s been much discussion regarding FDA’s pursuit of a Quality Metrics regulation for industry. Regulatory agencies and certain pharmaceutical industry groups (ISPE and PDA, for example), have suggested that quality differences between products and firms should be made more visible to the public. The use of scorecards or rankings based on quality metrics has been an effective tool for other industries. An example of this is issuance of restaurant hygiene grade cards.
So, how is this program going to look and what is its impact above and beyond what many companies are already doing with respect to their quality metrics activities? I recently participated in a University of Southern California poll seeking industry input regarding quality metrics programs for drug companies. A review of the questions and options for answering them provides insight as to the current regulatory thinking and where they’re likely heading with the impending requirement. To be sure, it is clear that FDA is shifting their focus to quality system performance and away from compliance (as quality system compliance is already a legal requirement and therefore a “given” in the equation).
The following questions are extracted from the poll. See what you can deduce based on the nature of the questions, the language used, and the options for answers. One thing is clear to me: With the FDA’s evolving approach to quality, how a company collects and uses metrics will also identify a company’s risk for quality failures — and whether or not those risks warrant added scrutiny and inspections by the FDA. Good performance data = less regulatory inspections with the opposite being true.