The FDA's Final Rule on Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs), published on May 6, 2024, represents the most significant regulatory change in the laboratory testing industry in decades. This shift from enforcement discretion to active regulation reflects the FDA's growing concerns about the complexity and widespread use of modern LDTs.
As a consulting partner offering a deep bench of laboratory and medical device professionals with extensive experience in both clinical and regulatory environments, we recognize the magnitude of this transition and its impact on laboratory operations.
This guide provides a detailed roadmap for achieving Stage 1 compliance by the May 6, 2025 deadline.
We also recommend watching the following webinar hosted by ARUP's Chief Medical Officer and Senior Director of Governmental Affairs, Jonathan Genzen, MD, PhD, and Chief Compliance Officer, Jonathan Carr, JD. It provides an excellent overview of the requirements included in the final rule and how these requirements differ across certain settings and types of testing.
LDTs have historically occupied a unique position in the diagnostic landscape. Under the FDA's previous approach of enforcement discretion, these tests provided crucial diagnostic capabilities, particularly in areas where commercial products were unavailable. This discretionary approach stemmed from the traditional nature of LDTs as relatively simple tests performed on a small scale within single laboratories.
However, the landscape has evolved dramatically. Modern LDTs often represent sophisticated, high-volume testing operations that significantly impact patient care decisions. This evolution and growing concerns about test validation and performance have driven the FDA's decision to implement comprehensive oversight.
The Final Rule amends 21 CFR Part 809.3(a) to explicitly include LDTs in the definition of in vitro diagnostic products. This amendment clarifies that IVDs encompass all products intended for use in the collection, preparation, and examination of specimens from the human body, regardless of whether a traditional manufacturer or a laboratory produces them.
Recognizing the significant impact this regulatory change will have on laboratories, the FDA has established a phased implementation timeline.
This approach allows laboratories to adapt to the new requirements gradually over four years. (The FDA often officially refers to implementing these regulations as the phase-out of enforcement discretion. In other words, the “phase-out” of enforcement is a “phase-in” of regulatory requirements.)
Here's a quick look at the key dates and requirements:
Stage 1 (May 6, 2025)By this date, laboratories must implement:
|
Stage 2 (May 6, 2026)By this date, laboratories must implement:
|
Stage 3 (May 6, 2027)By this date, laboratories must implement Quality System Requirements as outlined in 21 CFR Part 820. A few key considerations here:
|
Stage 4 (November 6, 2027)By this date, laboratories must submit premarket approval (PMA) applications for high-risk LDTs. |
Stage 5 (May 6, 2028)Laboratories must submit premarket notifications (510(k)) or De Novo classification requests for moderate and low-risk LDTs. |
Throughout this phased implementation, laboratories should continuously assess their LDT portfolio, prioritize resources, and develop a strategic plan to meet each deadline. It's crucial to start preparations early, particularly for high-risk LDTs requiring more extensive data and earlier submission deadlines.
The FDA's Final Rule includes specific exemptions (carve-outs) for certain LDTs. These tests will face reduced regulatory oversight, including previously existing tests ("grandfathered" LDTs), as long as they haven't undergone significant modifications to their use, operation, technology, or safety specifications.
The exemptions also cover "1976-Type LDTs" — manual tests performed by specialists using legally approved components in CLIA-certified labs. Additionally, certain Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) tests used in transplant procedures are exempt when performed in qualified laboratories.
Several other categories receive this reduced oversight: forensic tests, military and VA tests, and tests approved by New York State's Clinical Laboratory Program. Healthcare systems can also develop tests for unmet patient needs when no FDA-approved alternative exists or isn't suitable. Finally, non-molecular blood typing tests for rare antigens are exempt when no alternatives are available, though this doesn't apply to molecular testing methods.
Below is a chart showing which tests are included and excluded in the phase-out.
Notably, certain test types remain unaffected by the FDA's shift away from enforcement discretion. Essentially, the FDA anticipates that the following categories of devices will continue to adhere to the full medical device regulatory framework:
For clinical laboratories, the transition from traditional quality systems to FDA-compliant reporting systems represents a significant operational challenge. While CLIA-certified laboratories already maintain robust quality programs, the MDR requirements demand a more structured approach to event reporting and investigation. Success requires understanding how these three core systems work together and building them with both compliance and practicality in mind.
The three required systems serve distinct but interconnected functions in ensuring test quality and patient safety:
Integration of all three systems is therefore crucial to successful implementation. These systems must work together seamlessly while maintaining their distinct regulatory requirements. Clear triggers must exist for escalating complaints to MDR evaluation or correction/removal assessment, supported by consistent documentation practices across all three systems.
It’s also important to acknowledge the resourcing challenges here. Clinical laboratories, while well-versed in CLIA compliance and quality management, face a fundamentally different challenge with FDA requirements that, in most cases not only justifies, but demands specialized consulting support. While CLIA focuses primarily on quality control and proficiency testing, FDA's systems require sophisticated risk assessment, complex decision-making frameworks, and specific documentation practices that more closely resemble medical device manufacturing than traditional laboratory operations.
Experienced consultants bring not only knowledge of these requirements but also practical implementation strategies tested across multiple organizations, helping laboratories avoid common pitfalls while building sustainable systems that satisfy FDA expectations without overwhelming laboratory resources.
Contact us if the work projects we explain in the subsequent sections of this guide make it clear that your team requires expert third-party consulting support. We have the bench of contracted talent to help laboratories plan and execute all components of Stage 1 compliance.
At Stage 1, the FDA aims to systematically monitor significant adverse events to identify "problematic" LDTs in the market. Starting May 6, 2025, laboratories must comply with MDR requirements, which mandate reporting certain events to the FDA.
Importantly, laboratories must report events even if they can only determine the LDT may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury. Reportable events can include user errors, issues with materials or components, design issues, labeling issues, issues resulting from off-label use, or other malfunctions. Reporting an event does not constitute an admission that the LDT caused or contributed to the harm.
Here at the reporting timeframes at a glance:
1. Develop formal procedures for identifying and evaluating adverse events related to your LDTs.Laboratories must establish detailed protocols that outline exactly how staff should recognize and escalate potential issues, creating specific criteria for what constitutes a reportable event. This includes developing clear definitions of what constitutes "serious injury" and "malfunction" in the context of their specific LDTs — training staff on recognizing these situations and creating explicit documentation requirements. Laboratories will need procedures including step-by-step workflows for gathering initial information, establishing clear chains of command for internal reporting, and implementing systematic investigation methods. These procedures must address how to handle both clear-cut cases and situations where causation is less certain, remembering that events must be reported even when the LDT may have only contributed to an adverse outcome. |
2. Create a standardized review process for determining reporting requirements and timelines.This involves developing evaluation frameworks that guide staff through consistent assessment of potential reportable events. The process should include detailed decision trees that help staff determine whether an event meets reporting thresholds and identify which reporting timeline applies (30 days for standard reports, 5 days for emergency situations, or potential qualification for quarterly summary reporting for recurring events).
|
3. Implement systems for timely submission of initial and supplemental reports to the FDA through the Electronic Submissions Gateway (ESG) using Form 3500A.This requires careful attention to both technical and procedural aspects. Laboratories must establish and maintain proper accounts and credentials for FDA's ESG, making sure multiple staff members are trained and authorized to submit reports to prevent delays due to staff absence. The system should include detailed procedures for completing Form 3500A accurately, including guidance for handling different types of events and ensuring all required fields are properly completed.
|
4. Maintain comprehensive documentation of all complaints.Maintaining comprehensive documentation requires developing systems that ensure all relevant information is captured and readily accessible. This includes creating standardized forms or templates for documenting different types of events, establishing clear filing systems that facilitate both storage and retrieval of records, and implementing quality control measures to ensure documentation completeness. The documentation system should support trend analysis capabilities to help identify patterns or systematic issues that might require broader corrective actions. Record-keeping systems should track not only the initial event and investigation but also any follow-up actions, supplemental reports, and ongoing monitoring of corrective measures. All documentation should be maintained to facilitate delivery during FDA inspection and verification, with clear organization systems that allow quick access to specific records when needed. |
The FDA is requiring laboratories offering nonexempt LDTs to comply with correction and removal requirements as part of its broader effort to systematically monitor and identify "problematic" LDTs in the market. These requirements require that laboratories promptly report certain corrective actions and maintain comprehensive records of all corrections and removals, even those that don't require reporting.
A laboratory must submit a written report to the FDA when correcting or removing an LDT for two specific reasons:
The FDA defines a correction as any repair, modification, adjustment, relabeling, destruction, or inspection (including patient monitoring) performed without moving the device from its point of use. A removal involves physically relocating the device to another location for any of these same actions.
Not all corrections or removals trigger reporting requirements. Actions taken solely to improve performance, quality, or profitability don't require reporting unless they address health risks or legal compliance issues. Furthermore, if an event has already been reported under MDR requirements, no additional report is needed.
However, when a correction or removal is undertaken to address health risks or legal compliance, laboratories must submit their report within 10 working days of initiating the action. Reports can be submitted via email to the FDA or through the ESG using eSubmitter.
Here are examples of when corrections or removals are required:
Here are examples of when corrections or removals are NOT required:
1. Establish comprehensive documentation systems.Laboratories must maintain records of all corrections and removals, whether reportable or not. Laboratories must develop standardized documentation procedures that ensure consistent recording of all necessary information, including detailed narrative descriptions of events, complete chronological timelines of actions taken, and thorough justifications for all decisions made. The system should include specific templates or forms for different types of corrections and removals, ensuring all required FDA information is captured even for non-reportable events.
|
2. Implement clear decision processes.Create systematic approaches for evaluating whether corrections or removals require FDA reporting. This includes creating detailed decision trees or evaluation frameworks that guide staff through consistent assessment of health risks and legal compliance implications. The process should include specific criteria for determining when actions are taken solely for quality improvement or business reasons versus when they address health risks or legal compliance issues. Clear protocols should be established for documenting the rationale behind all decisions, particularly when determining that reporting is not required. The process should include quality control checkpoints to verify proper categorization of actions and ensure consistent application of decision criteria. Laboratories should also develop specific procedures for handling situations where multiple correction or removal actions might be related, ensuring proper evaluation of aggregate impacts and reporting requirements. |
3. Develop efficient reporting systems.Set up streamlined processes for submitting required reports within the 10-working-day deadline. Laboratories must create specific procedures for preparing and submitting reports, including detailed instructions for using FDA's electronic submission systems or email reporting processes. The system should include clear workflows for gathering required information, validating report contents, obtaining necessary internal approvals, and tracking submission status. Procedures should address both initial reports and any necessary updates or supplemental information. Training programs should ensure multiple staff members are capable of preparing and submitting reports to prevent delays due to personnel absence. The system should include mechanisms for tracking reporting deadlines and verifying successful submissions, with built-in reminders or alerts to prevent missed deadlines. |
4. Maintain investigation records.Keep detailed records of all investigation findings, corrective actions taken, and follow-up measures implemented. Records should include detailed documentation of initial issue identification, investigation methodologies, findings, risk assessments, and all corrective actions implemented. The documentation should clearly define the scope of any issues identified, including potential impacts on patient results or healthcare decisions. Records must track all steps taken to address identified issues, including verification activities to confirm the effectiveness of corrective actions. The system should include procedures for documenting follow-up measures and monitoring activities to ensure the long-term resolution of issues. Investigation records should be maintained to allow easy correlation with related complaint files, MDR reports, or other quality system documentation. The record-keeping system should support both internal quality management needs and potential FDA inspections, with clear organization systems that facilitate efficient review and verification of records. |
At Stage 1, laboratories offering nonexempt LDTs must comply with the FDA's Quality System complaint file requirements, establishing formal procedures for handling complaints. A complaint is defined as any written, electronic, or oral communication alleging deficiencies in a device's identity, quality, durability, reliability, safety, effectiveness, or performance after it is released for distribution. For LDTs, this typically involves reports of erroneous test results.
The laboratory must establish a formally designated compliance unit staffed by appropriately trained individuals. While this unit may be located separately from the laboratory, all complaint-related information must remain readily accessible. The unit must implement written procedures ensuring uniform and timely processing of all complaints, including proper documentation of oral complaints upon receipt and evaluation of whether additional adverse event reporting is required.
The complaint handling system serves two critical purposes: enabling laboratories to identify trends requiring further investigation and allowing the FDA to assess complaint processes during inspections. FDA recommends maintaining all complaint files related to an LDT in a single location to facilitate trend analysis. This centralized approach helps identify patterns that might indicate systemic issues requiring broader corrective actions.
Here's what every complaint file must include:
1. Establish formal complaint procedures.Laboratories must create comprehensive written procedures covering every aspect of complaint handling, from initial receipt through final resolution. These procedures must detail specific protocols for receiving both written and oral complaints, with particular attention to ensuring oral complaints are immediately documented with the same level of detail as written ones. Staff must be trained on recognizing what constitutes a complaint — any communication suggesting device deficiencies, regardless of the source or severity. The procedures should include clear evaluation criteria for assessing complaints, specific documentation requirements, and defined workflows for processing each type of complaint. Even seemingly minor issues, such as complaints about turnaround time or specimen collection requirements, must be processed through this formal system. The procedures should also establish clear hierarchies for complaint handling and define responsibilities for different staff members throughout the complaint management process. |
2. Document all complaints thoroughly.Every complaint must be recorded in detail, regardless of its perceived severity or validity. The documentation system should capture all required elements: complete test identification, precise timing of the complaint receipt, comprehensive contact information for the complainant, and a detailed description of the reported issue. For complaints that don't warrant investigation, the file must include a thorough written justification for this decision, along with a clear identification of the responsible decision-maker. For investigated complaints, documentation should include a complete chronological record of the investigation, including all findings, decisions made, and actions taken. Documentation must also include copies of all communications with the complainant, including any responses sent. Even when complaints come through indirect channels, such as sales representatives hearing customer concerns, they must be documented with the same thoroughness as direct complaints. |
3. Implement investigation procedures.Laboratories need to develop detailed protocols for conducting investigations, beginning with initial assessment procedures that help determine the scope and severity of the reported issue. The investigation methodology should include clear steps for gathering and analyzing relevant data, reviewing related documentation, interviewing involved personnel when necessary, and examining any affected specimens or test results. Documentation requirements for investigations should specify what information must be recorded at each step, including timestamps for all activities. Clear decision-making criteria must be established for determining when corrective actions are needed and what type of actions are appropriate. The procedures should also include specific protocols for communicating with complainants throughout the investigation process, including templates for standard communications and guidelines for handling different types of inquiries. |
4. Create quality control measures.Laboratories must establish comprehensive monitoring systems that track multiple aspects of complaint handling, including processing times, investigation thoroughness, and consistency of documentation. These systems should include regular audits of complaint files to verify proper documentation and appropriate handling of all complaints. Timeline tracking mechanisms should be implemented to ensure complaints are processed efficiently and all required deadlines are met. Trend analysis capabilities must be built into the system to identify complaint patterns that might indicate systemic issues requiring broader corrective actions. Regular reviews should be conducted to verify that corrective actions have been properly implemented and are effectively addressing identified issues. All records must be maintained to ensure easy accessibility for FDA inspections, with clear organization systems that facilitate both internal reviews and external audits. Quality control measures should also include regular staff training and competency assessments to ensure consistent implementation of all complaint-handling procedures. |
Consider the following real-world scenarios that laboratories may encounter.
Laboratory Processing ErrorsIf laboratory personnel inadvertently swap specimens during testing, resulting in Patient A receiving Patient B's results and vice versa, the incident triggers multiple regulatory obligations. This scenario requires recording as a complaint, thorough investigation, and potentially MDR reporting if the erroneous results may have caused or contributed to serious injury. For instance, in cancer diagnosis testing, where incorrect results could lead to unnecessary treatment for one patient and delayed treatment for another, MDR reporting would be required. The laboratory must also implement corrections and issue recalls of the original test reports, replacing them with corrected results. |
Pre-analytical ErrorsContrast the previous example with specimen collection errors occurring at an unaffiliated blood draw site. While the outcome may be similar — switched specimens leading to incorrect result reporting — the regulatory requirements differ. The laboratory must still document the complaint and conduct an investigation, but correction/removal reporting to the FDA is not required because the LDT itself functioned properly. This distinction highlights the importance of determining whether the error originated from the test system or from external factors. |
Information System IssuesModern laboratories rely heavily on Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS), creating another category of potential errors. Consider a case where the test performs correctly, but a defect in the validated commercial LIMS causes incorrect result reporting. This scenario requires complaint documentation and investigation. If the erroneous result could cause serious injury, such as in diagnostic testing that directs treatment decisions, MDR reporting would be necessary. However, since the commercial LIMS is not considered part of the LDT device, no correction/removal reporting or recall to the FDA is required. Here we see the need to clearly define the boundaries of the LDT device when determining regulatory obligations. |
Integration requires the development of a master process flow diagram showing how information moves between the three systems. This should include specific trigger points where complaints require escalation to MDR evaluation or correction/removal assessment.
The laboratory should create a comprehensive compliance calendar tracking all reporting deadlines and review requirements. This calendar should account for the various timing requirements: 30 days for MDR reporting, 10 days for Class 1 and 2 recalls, and internal timelines for complaint investigation and resolution.
|
Implementation should follow a phased approach with specific milestones:
|
Each phase should include specific deliverables, success criteria, and validation requirements before moving to the next phase. The laboratory should develop detailed test scenarios covering various potential situations, from simple complaints to complex events requiring multiple system interactions.
Training programs must include role-specific modules with competency assessments for each staff level involved in the systems. These should incorporate hands-on practice using the actual forms and procedures staff will use in their daily work.
Quality monitoring should include specific metrics for system performance: complaint resolution times, MDR reporting compliance, investigation thoroughness, and documentation completeness. Regular audits should evaluate both individual cases and overall system performance against these metrics.
Below are several additional critical considerations that LDT firms should understand when implementing these systems.
Documentation requirements deserve special attention beyond basic system design. Laboratories must establish specific procedures for maintaining the integrity and retrievability of all records. This includes implementing version control for all procedures and forms, establishing audit trails for any record modifications, and ensuring all documentation is readily accessible for FDA inspection.
Labs need to have electronic systems to manage the documentation and reporting requirements that stretch across all three of these systems. Laboratories should consider whether their existing LIMS or quality management software can be adapted to handle these new requirements or if additional systems are needed.
Laboratories must establish clear procedures for handling complaints and events involving contracted services or purchased components. Errors occurring at contracted collection sites require different handling than internal errors. Clear procedures must specify how these situations are documented and when they trigger reporting requirements.
Backup procedures must be established for all critical functions. This includes designating alternate personnel for key roles, establishing backup documentation systems in case of IT failures, and ensuring reporting capabilities are maintained even during system outages or other disruptions.
Beyond basic compliance, laboratories should establish KPIs for each system:
|
Regular system reviews should examine these metrics to identify trends and improvement opportunities. This data can also help justify resource needs and system modifications over time.
Clear delineation of responsibilities is crucial. Laboratories should establish specific role definitions:
|
Regular system reviews should examine these metrics to identify trends and improvement opportunities. This data can also help justify resource needs and system modifications over time.
Clear communication channels must be established for each system, including:
|
Regular system reviews should examine these metrics to identify trends and improvement opportunities. This data can also help justify resource needs and system modifications over time.
The scope of Stage 1 compliance encompasses three interconnected systems that must work seamlessly together while maintaining distinct regulatory requirements. This demands not only technical expertise in regulatory compliance but also a deep understanding of laboratory operations and existing quality systems.
The path to compliance begins with establishing the foundational quality system elements that support all three required systems — MDR, corrections and removals, and complaint handling. Laboratories should map out dependencies between different implementation activities, identifying which elements must be completed before others can begin. For example, the complaint handling system must be operational before MDR procedures can be fully implemented, as complaints often trigger MDR evaluations. This critical path analysis helps laboratories avoid bottlenecks and ensure efficient resource utilization.
Working backward from the May 6, 2025 compliance deadline, laboratories should establish clear milestones that allow adequate time for system refinement and staff training.
|
Key milestones typically include:
|
Each milestone should include specific success criteria and deliverables. Importantly, laboratories should build in buffer time between major milestones to accommodate unexpected challenges and allow for system optimization based on early implementation experience.
Most laboratories will find their current staff lack specific experience with FDA reporting requirements, while external consultants may need time to understand laboratory-specific workflows and constraints. Therefore, a successful implementation requires thoughtful resource allocation and clear delineation of roles between internal staff and external partners.
Resource allocation must align with the intensity of different implementation phases. The initial documentation development phase typically requires the heaviest investment in consulting support and internal staff time. As implementation progresses, resource needs shift toward training and system validation activities. Laboratories should plan for these changing resource requirements, ensuring adequate staffing and expertise are available at each phase. This includes identifying when specific subject matter experts need to be engaged and planning for potential resource constraints during high-intensity periods.
Perhaps the most challenging aspect of timeline management is balancing compliance implementation with ongoing laboratory operations. Successful laboratories typically adopt a staged implementation approach, rolling out new systems in controlled phases to minimize operational disruption. This might involve piloting new procedures in specific departments before full implementation or implementing basic system elements before adding more complex components.
Project leaders should work closely with operational managers to identify critical operational periods and adjust implementation timelines accordingly. Additionally, laboratories should establish clear criteria for when implementation activities take precedence over routine operations and when they need to be temporarily scaled back to accommodate operational demands.
Below is a recommended step-by-step strategy for orchestrating a Stage 1 compliance project before the May, 2025 deadline.
Immediate Action: Secure Regulatory Consulting Support
|
Phase 1: Initial Assessment and Organization
|
Phase 2: Development of Procedures
|
Phase 3: Testing and Implementation
|
The transition to FDA oversight requires consultants with specific expertise in three core areas: regulatory knowledge, quality systems implementation, and laboratory operations. The primary consultant should bring deep experience with the FDA's medical device reporting requirements and practical knowledge of implementing these systems in real-world settings.
Regulatory expertise must cover MDR requirements (21 CFR Part 803), corrections and removals (Part 806), and complaint handling (Part 820.198). The consultant needs hands-on experience with FDA's Electronic Submissions Gateway, Form 3500A submissions, and understanding of how these requirements interact with existing CLIA regulations. They should also have experience guiding organizations through FDA inspections and regulatory correspondence.
Quality system development expertise is crucial for creating robust but practical documentation systems. This includes designing standard operating procedures, work instructions, forms, and tracking systems that satisfy FDA requirements while remaining usable in daily laboratory operations. The consultant must understand how to integrate new processes with existing laboratory workflows and develop effective training programs.
Given the scope of Stage 1 requirements, laboratories are engaging multiple consultants with complementary skills.
A typical consulting team might include:
The consulting team must excel at knowledge transfer, building internal capabilities that allow the laboratory to eventually operate these systems independently. Strong communication skills and experience managing similar implementations are essential, as consultants must work effectively with laboratory staff at all levels while navigating organizational change.
When selecting consultants, laboratories should prioritize demonstrated experience with similar implementations and understanding of both FDA requirements and laboratory operations. The right consulting team provides technical expertise and practical guidance for building sustainable compliance systems.
The path to Stage 1 compliance begins with three immediate actions that every laboratory should take upon finishing this guide.
The transition to FDA oversight presents several common challenges that laboratories should anticipate and plan to address.
The Documentation TrapEarly adopters of Stage 1 compliance have consistently identified underestimating the scope of documentation requirements as a primary challenge. Many laboratories initially approach MDR, corrections and removals, and complaint handling as simple extensions of their CLIA quality systems, failing to recognize the more rigorous documentation and investigation requirements of FDA oversight. To mitigate this risk, make sure you conduct thorough reviews of your current documentation practices against FDA requirements early in the implementation process, allowing adequate time to develop more comprehensive systems. |
The Resource SqueezeResource allocation presents another significant challenge, particularly regarding staff time and engagement. Laboratories often underestimate the time required from key personnel during implementation, leading to competing priorities and delayed milestones. Quality managers and laboratory directors frequently find themselves stretched thin between routine operations and compliance activities, potentially compromising both. Successful implementations typically dedicate specific staff members to the compliance project, with clear backfilling plans for their routine responsibilities. Additionally, laboratories should establish explicit criteria for prioritizing compliance activities against their current operational demands. |
The Practicality BalanceThe most successful implementations maintain balance between thoroughness and practicality. While FDA compliance requires robust systems, these systems must remain workable within the laboratory's operational constraints. Laboratories should regularly assess whether new processes are being consistently followed and whether they're achieving their intended purposes. When procedures prove overly burdensome or ineffective, teams should be prepared to redesign them while maintaining regulatory compliance. This ongoing optimization process, guided by practical experience and consultant expertise, helps ensure the sustainability of Stage 1 compliance systems. |
As a leader in FDA regulatory consulting, The FDA Group offers comprehensive support for laboratories navigating the complexities of LDT regulation. Our experienced team brings deep expertise in both FDA compliance and laboratory operations, providing end-to-end guidance through every aspect of Stage 1 implementation and beyond.
We understand that most laboratories are encountering FDA oversight for the first time and have very limited resources and understanding of the road ahead. We've structured our services to ensure a smooth, efficient transition to compliance.
Our comprehensive compliance support services include, but are not limited to:
The FDA Group offers flexible engagement models to meet your specific needs, from focused consulting on particular aspects of compliance to comprehensive program management. Our consultants can work on-site or remotely, scaling their involvement based on your internal capabilities and resource constraints.
Here are just a few of the reasons laboratories are partnering with us for compliance support:
We believe in building true partnerships with our clients, working alongside your team to build sustainable compliance systems that enhance rather than hinder laboratory operations. Our consultants focus not just on meeting regulatory requirements but on optimizing processes to improve efficiency and quality while maintaining compliance.
Fill out and submit the form below to ensure you’re prepared by the Stage 1 deadline—on time and on budget.