Quality Assurance • Regulatory Affairs

Work Instruction Development

Published • • 8 min read

Updating the Indications for Use showed that formatting and merging documents (fonts, structure) seems purely cosmetic but is often a submission requirement in its own right, getting it wrong is a preventable reason for rejection.

Updating the Indications for Use meant reformatting and merging source documents into a single, consistent structure, work that looks cosmetic right up until a reviewer rejects it for exactly that reason.

Cosmetic until it's a rejection reason

Fonts, structure, and document merging read as purely cosmetic concerns, but a submission built to the wrong format can be rejected on that basis alone, independent of the accuracy of its content.

Updating the Indications for Use required:
  • Comparing the existing checklist/instruction against the current regulation or process in practice
  • Correcting discrepancies found during that comparison
  • Confirming the update against the source document or QMS procedure

What an outdated instruction risks

An outdated checklist or work instruction being followed after the underlying regulation or process has changed is the exact failure mode this update was checked against.

What the update delivered

Reformatting and merging the documents into the required standard made the Indications for Use package submission-ready.

The Real Takeaway

Formatting and merging documents seems purely cosmetic but is often a submission requirement in its own right.

Getting it wrong is a preventable reason for rejection.

Done reading this sample?

Go back to my Articles page to find topics that might be of interest to you. Let me know if you want me to write about something specific.

Back to article archive