Skip to content
MarketScale
‹ Back to IndustriesHealthcare

GAINING REGULATORY APPROVAL

In reviewing medical devices, the FDA cares primarily about two things: Safety and Efficacy In order for a company to market a medical device in the United States, it is necessary that they gain approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Ensuring FDA approval requires evidence that…

This story was produced through MarketScale. See how Healthcare teams put it to work with Executive Thought Leadership.

Share

Get featured

Want to get featured in MarketScale Healthcare?

Create a free MarketScale workspace and get your company's expertise featured across our Healthcare coverage. No credit card, no demo required.

Request an invite

In reviewing medical devices, the FDA cares primarily about two things: Safety and Efficacy

In order for a company to market a medical device in the United States, it is necessary that they gain approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Ensuring FDA approval requires evidence that the device was designed and manufactured under a quality system conforming to US Code of Federal Regulations 21 CFR part 820. Conforming to these standards is not optional – it is illegal to sell medical devices that have not been approved by the FDA. Although the FDA approval process can be tedious, starting with a good quality management system and understanding what the FDA is looking for can help streamline the process and make sure the device ends up getting approved.

Quality Management Standard

Subscribing to a recognized quality management system makes the FDA approval process go much smoother, and helps companies make sure they conform to FDA standards. ISO 13485 is a quality management standard specific to the medical device industry, and is recognized worldwide. Although being ISO 13485 certified does not guarantee approval by the FDA, the standards are so similar that ISO 13485 certified companies are more likely to get their devices approved.

Getting an ISO 13485 certification is a valuable first step in getting approval for the product, and it also helps make sure the device will meet international standards. An ISO 13485 certification demonstrates that a company has a quality management system that complies with the requirements of the FDA, and greatly increases the chances of submitting a complete package to the FDA or international regulatory bodies. It serves as an effective risk management strategy that increases the chances of creating successful products and helps prevent recalls, safety issues, or brand damage.

Submission Guidelines

The first step to successfully getting a device FDA-approved is to understand the FDA submission guidelines. Different types of devices are subject to different types of regulatory policy, so understanding how the FDA classifies devices is important to making sure the product gets approved. The categories are determined by how risky the device is to the user, with riskier products requiring more comprehensive testing.

Class I medical devices, for example elastic bandages or manual stethoscopes, involve little risk to the patient, and only need to be registered with the FDA, rather than approved. Class II medical devices, which include products such as powered wheelchairs or x-ray machines, are more complex and have the potential to pose some risk to the patient, and therefore more information and testing is required to get them certified.

Class II devices require the submission of a 510(k). Class III devices have the potential to pose the most risk to the patient and often play a life-supporting or life-sustaining role, for example pacemakers or breast implants. A device can also be Class III if it is not similar to anything else on the market.

Since Class III devices pose the highest risk, they also require the highest quality assurance, and usually require a premarket approval (PMA). There are some alternative paths to gaining FDA approval, such as using the de novo classification, but generally FDA approval involves either a 510(k) or PMA. Understanding the device’s classification and the information and documentation required by that classification is a key part of getting the FDA to approve the device.

Safety and Efficacy

When reviewing medical devices for approval, the FDA cares primarily about two things: safety and efficacy. Safety is the biggest factor when seeking approval for a medical device, and the more potential risk the device has, the more testing and trials it will have to undergo before it is approved. Risk management is a key part of the process to FDA approval, because obviously a device that is not safe for consumers to use cannot be allowed to go to market. The FDA also requires a design history file (DHF) containing evidence that a compliant quality system was followed to get cleared or approved. Designing medical devices is not just about whether the end design works safely; it’s also about following a compliant process along the way and documenting the process steps as evidence to conformance.

The FDA also wants to determine whether the device is “effective,” essentially whether or not it successfully does what it is supposed to do. The FDA requires documentation demonstrating that the device meets the claims published about the device (in the device “labeling”). The more ambitious the claims about the device, the more extensive the clinical or simulated testing that is required for approval. Ensuring that the device conforms to both safety and efficacy standards helps the device move smoothly through the FDA approval process and get to the point where it can be marketed.

The ‘CE’ Mark

If a company plans to market a device in Europe as well as in the US, a slightly different EU standard must also be met in addition to the standards set out by the FDA. The company must demonstrate that the device meets the requirements in the Medical Device Directive (MDD) by performing a conformity assessment. This assessment varies according to the classification of the device.

This then leads to the device receiving a CE Mark, which is a manufacturer’s declaration that the product complies with the ‘essential requirements’ of the relevant European health, safety, and environmental protection legislation. Although the requirements for receiving FDA approval and a CE mark tend to be very similar, as the CE mark focuses around safety and efficacy as well, they are two different systems and the documentation needs to be submitted separately. Some devices end up with only one or the other.

Conclusion

Seeking FDA approval can be something that is very overwhelming for medical device companies, especially if it a process they have not necessarily gone through before. However, in order to bring a device to market it is absolutely imperative that it goes through the FDA approval process. Although the process is difficult, there are a few things to help make it easier – having a good understanding of how the FDA classification system works can help ensure that companies have completed the right testing and documentation, and focusing on making sure the device is proven to be efficient and safe will go a long way in helping to streamline the process. Additionally, although the CE mark is not the first priority for a company looking to get FDA approval, it is something important to keep in mind to make the process more efficient.

Your experts belong here

Every story in MarketScale Healthcare starts with a company putting its clinicians, service-line leaders, and field engineers on the record. Buyers are already reading this topic. The only question is whose experts they find.

Service-line buyers vet vendors quietly, and your clinicians become the proof they find while doing it.

Get your team featuredSee how it works15 minutes, straight to a calendar.

Follow Healthcare Insights

Get new expert content in your inbox.

Healthcare: are you visible to AI?

Before they reach out, Healthcare buyers ask AI engines which vendors to trust. See how AI describes your company today, and where competitors show up instead.

Free workspace

You just read one Healthcare expert. Your company is full of them.

This article was produced through MarketScale. The same platform turns your clinicians, service-line leaders, and field engineers into the articles, video, and social content Healthcare buyers are searching for. Create a free workspace and see it with your own people. No credit card, no demo required.

NPS +73 · 1,000+ creators · 38+ countries

What you get, free

Your own MarketScale Studio workspace
One video edit a month, on us
AI writing, editing, and publishing tools
In-platform coaching to learn the system

More Healthcare Insights

More nurses did not lift safety culture scores in a 205-hospital analysis

More nurses did not lift safety culture scores in a 205-hospital analysis

A 2026 analysis in the Journal of Hospital Management and Health Policy combined 2021–2022 HSOPC results with AHA, HCRIS, and AHRF data across 205 hospitals and reported that small increases in nurse and physician staffing lined up with slightly lower “percent positive” patient safety culture scores in several dimensions. According to the Journal of Healthcare Management abstract hosted on Ovid, the study described a 2% decrease in positive staffing perceptions with β=−0.02 per additional nurse FTE and a −0.01 change in perceived reporting of patient safety events per additional nurse, while additional physician staffing was associated with −0.01 changes in perceptions of communication openness and organizational learning, and joint ventures were associated with a −0.03 change in perceptions of management support for safety (all p<0.05). The operational read is that adding headcount by itself does not ensure stronger safety-culture signals; hospitals also need the workflows that turn observations into closed-loop fixes, from “just culture” reporting expectations to facilities work-order follow-through, as described by Sentara Health leaders in Chief Healthcare Executive and by Health Facilities Management’s environment-of-care guidance. For health system operators, the near-term consequence shows up in how HSOPC survey targets connect to leader scorecards, rounding programs, digital reporting tools, and joint-venture governance, especially where staffing growth is driven by complexity and handoffs.

  • 01If HSOPC “percent positive” scores are a board KPI, staffing increases can move in the opposite direction unless reporting and learning loops scale too. The study’s negative coefficients are small, but they signal a measurement risk during growth.
  • 02Facilities and clinical safety cultures converge in the same pipeline: observation, reporting, triage, work order, verification. HFM Magazine’s door-lock example is the same system problem as event reporting, it is throughput and closure, not awareness.
  • 03Joint ventures can add operational complexity that dilutes perceived management support for safety. That belongs in JV governance charters and integration playbooks, not only in finance models.

Sep 1, 2026

Smart ICU and ambient AI cut errors when they feed data and notes into the EMR

Smart ICU and ambient AI cut errors when they feed data and notes into the EMR

Two HIMSS26 APAC case studies point to the same operational lesson: hospitals are getting measurable gains from “smart ICU” device integration and ambient AI documentation only when those tools are tightly integrated into core clinical workflows. Pondok Indah Hospital Group in Indonesia reported reductions of up to 70% in ICU administrative errors and 40% in adverse drug reactions after integrating smart devices, according to Healthcare IT News. Sir H.N. Reliance Foundation Hospital in India reported ambient AI is now used for nearly 90% of progress notes and shift handovers across five live use cases on a single EMR-integrated platform, also reported by Healthcare IT News. New JAMA Network cardiovascular research adds a parallel signal on the clinical side, with AI-enabled acquisition and interpretation approaches moving into screening and triage workflows, which raises procurement questions about validation, interoperability, and change management at the bedside.

  • 01A useful benchmark is emerging for documentation automation: “nearly 90% of progress notes and shift handovers” on ambient AI when it is deployed as one EMR-integrated platform, not a set of point tools (Healthcare IT News).
  • 02The measurable ROI in ‘smart ICU’ programs shows up where operators feel pain: fewer administrative errors and medication-related events, not in abstract “digitization” metrics (Healthcare IT News reported up to 70% and 40% reductions, respectively).
  • 03For hospitals with multiple device vendors and fragmented documentation workflows, integration work, interfaces, identity, order context, and governance, is likely to consume more effort than model selection, so contracts and implementation plans should price integration explicitly.

Sep 1, 2026

Gartner says AI budgets are growing faster than the rules to control them

Gartner says AI budgets are growing faster than the rules to control them

Gartner’s late-August 2026 research points to a familiar operational pattern in enterprise AI: budgets are rising faster than the controls meant to keep costs and risk predictable. In a Aug. 26 press release, Gartner said AI spending by customer service leaders surged 38% even as overall service and support budgets rose 2%. Earlier, at Gartner’s March 2026 Data & Analytics Summit, Gartner analysts said only 44% of organizations had adopted financial guardrails or AI FinOps practices, a gap that becomes more painful as AI workloads scale. The practical takeaway for CIOs, customer service operations leaders, and data and analytics teams is to treat AI governance, cost attribution, and human escalation paths as procurement requirements, not after-the-fact fixes.

  • 01A useful benchmark for planning: Gartner pegs AI spend growth in customer service at 38% versus 2% budget growth overall, a mismatch that forces reallocation and harder ROI proof.
  • 02Only 44% of organizations have adopted AI FinOps-style guardrails, according to Gartner. If AI is moving into production, chargeback and consumption limits need to be designed into the rollout.
  • 03Gartner also forecasts spending on securing AI will hit $4.8 billion in 2027, signaling that AI security is becoming a standalone budget line rather than a feature bundled into existing platforms.

Sep 1, 2026

Explore More Healthcare Insights

Read more expert perspectives from across Healthcare.

Browse Healthcare Hub

For B2B teams

Your experts could be publishing here

Stories like this one run on content MarketScale captures from real practitioners. See how your team's expertise becomes coverage in Healthcare and beyond.

Book a 15-minute demo

Or call us. No forms required. We pick up. 214-945-2512