Complaint Intake
Complaint intake captures reports from customers, field staff, literature, and service records, since a complaint arriving through service is still a complaint.
Custom Software
Medical Device Adverse Event Reporting Software Development
Device adverse event software manages complaint intake through MDR reportability determination, investigation, and electronic submission to FDA. Reportability is a regulated decision made by qualified personnel against defined criteria, and the software documents that determination rather than making it, since an incorrect reportability call carries consequences either way.
Device complaint handling differs from pharmaceutical safety in ways that matter architecturally: the reporting decision hinges on malfunction and device involvement rather than causality assessment, and timelines are shorter for certain events. Taction Software builds medical device adverse event reporting capability specific to that framework.
Tell Us Your Requirements
Our experts are ready to understand your business goals.
Trusted Partners
Trusted by Industry Leaders Worldwide
Recognition
Awards & Recognitions
What Is Device Adverse Event Reporting Software
Medical device adverse event reporting software manages the complaint and vigilance lifecycle: intake from any source, complaint documentation, reportability determination against MDR criteria, investigation including device return and analysis, electronic submission to FDA, and international vigilance reporting where applicable. It differs from pharmacovigilance in evaluating device malfunction and involvement rather than drug causality. Our work sits within our broader medical devices and IoT practice.
Reportability Determination
MDR reportability is assessed against defined criteria by qualified personnel, with the system documenting the decision path and rationale.
Investigation Workflow
Investigation covers device return, analysis, and root cause where determinable, connecting with our quality processes work.
eMDR Submission
Electronic submission formats and transmits reports to FDA within applicable timelines, with acknowledgment handling rather than assumed delivery.
International Vigilance
Vigilance reporting in other jurisdictions follows different criteria and timelines, requiring separate assessment rather than mirrored submission.
Trending and Signal Review
Complaint trending identifies patterns across events, supporting the periodic review quality systems require and inspections examine.
Core Device Reporting Services
Our medical device adverse event reporting services cover complaint systems, reportability workflow, investigation tracking, submission integration, and validated delivery. The design priority is timeline management, since MDR deadlines run from awareness and a complaint sitting unrecognized in a service queue consumes the clock invisibly. Engagements typically open with a review of intake channels and how complaints currently reach the quality function.
01
Complaint Management System
We build complaint handling with intake from all channels, since complaints arriving through sales or service frequently bypass formal quality intake.
02
Reportability Decision Support
Decision workflow presents criteria and documents the determination, supporting qualified personnel rather than automating a regulated judgment.
03
Investigation and Device Analysis
Investigation tracking covers device return, testing, and findings, producing the record supporting both the report and any subsequent action.
04
Submission Integration
eMDR submission handles formatting, transmission, and acknowledgment, since undetected submission failure creates a reporting gap.
05
Text and Narrative Processing
Where narrative extraction helps, our clinical NLP development work supports complaint processing with human review required.
06
Part 11 Validated Delivery
Complaint systems support regulatory obligations. Our 21 CFR Part 11 for AI work covers audit trails and validation.
Benefits of Purpose-Built Device Reporting Software
The benefits concentrate in timeline compliance, intake completeness, and defensible reportability records. Late MDR submission is a common inspection finding, and the cause is usually a complaint that reached quality after the clock had already been running. We publish no figures on submission timeliness, complaint volume, or inspection outcomes, because those depend entirely on product portfolio and current process maturity.
Timeline Visibility
Deadline tracking from awareness makes MDR timelines visible in workflow, addressing late submissions caused by delayed internal routing.
Complete Intake Capture
Multi-channel intake captures complaints arriving through service and sales, which frequently bypass formal quality channels entirely.
Defensible Reportability Records
Decision documentation records the criteria applied and rationale, since inspections examine reportability calls in both directions.
Reliable Submission
Acknowledgment handling confirms transmission succeeded, since a report believed filed but actually rejected creates an undetected reporting gap.
Trending Insight
Pattern identification across complaints surfaces systemic issues that individual investigations treat as isolated events.
Quality System Continuity
Complaint data connects with broader quality processes, complementing our incident reporting work on event documentation.
Our Device Reporting Process
We deliver medical device adverse event reporting projects in gated phases so quality, regulatory, and IT stakeholders approve direction before engineering cost accumulates. Discovery establishes intake channels, current timeline performance, and validation scope. Intake mapping receives particular attention, since complaints reaching quality late are the dominant cause of late reporting, and that is a routing problem rather than a submission problem.
Discovery and Intake Mapping
Discovery maps intake channels including service and sales, since complaints reaching quality late cause most late submissions.
Reportability Criteria Configuration
Criteria configuration is documented with regulatory and quality, since reportability interpretation is a regulated judgment we implement rather than decide.
Investigation Workflow
Investigation workflow is built around device return logistics and analysis capacity, which bound how quickly findings can support a report.
Submission Development
eMDR integration includes acknowledgment and rejection handling, so failures surface as exceptions rather than sitting unnoticed.
Validation Delivery
Computer system validation produces documented evidence appropriate to a system supporting regulatory reporting obligations.
Rollout and Ongoing Support
Rollout includes timeline monitoring and continuing support as reporting requirements and international obligations change.
Technology and Compliance
Device adverse event reporting operates under FDA medical device reporting requirements including defined timelines from awareness, quality system complaint handling obligations, and international vigilance frameworks with differing criteria. Taction holds ISO 27001 certification. Two points deserve emphasis. Reportability is a regulated determination made by qualified personnel against criteria, not a software output. And the clock starts at awareness anywhere in the organization, not at quality intake.
MDR Reporting Requirements
MDR timelines run from awareness, with shorter deadlines for certain event types, making internal routing speed a compliance factor.
Reportability Determination Boundary
Reportability is decided by qualified personnel against criteria. The system documents the determination rather than concluding it automatically.
Complaint Handling Obligations
Quality system requirements govern complaint handling independently of reportability, so every complaint requires documentation regardless of MDR status.
International Vigilance Differences
Vigilance criteria differ across jurisdictions, so international reporting requires separate assessment rather than mirroring the FDA determination.
Part 11 Compliance
Part 11 applies to records supporting regulatory reporting, requiring audit trails, signatures, and computer system validation.
Deployment Security
Deployments run in your cloud tenancy or hybrid, with network segmentation, signed container images, and documented penetration testing before release.
Why Choose Taction Software
Taction Software was founded in 2013 and has spent over 12 years building healthcare and life sciences software, delivering more than 200 healthcare projects from four US offices in Chicago, Cheyenne, Austin, and Sacramento, with ISO 27001 certification. Our relevant focus here is intake routing rather than submission mechanics. Late MDR reports are usually caused by complaints sitting in service queues, not by slow filing, and software scoped only around submission does not address that. Our leadership brings more than 20 years of personal experience in the field.
01
Intake Routing Focus
We map all intake channels including service and sales, since late reporting is usually a routing failure rather than a submission problem.
02
Reportability Boundary Respected
We build decision documentation rather than automated determination, since reportability is a regulated judgment assigned to qualified people.
03
Validated System Delivery
We produce Part 11 validation evidence as a work product rather than assembling documentation before an inspection.
04
Established Healthcare Focus
Founded in 2013, we have concentrated on healthcare and life sciences rather than treating them as one vertical among several.
05
Regulated Product Experience
We delivered the FDA-registered applications Revive Ease and PainKare, so design controls and documentation practice are established.
06
Certified Security Posture
ISO 27001 certification means security controls are documented and auditable, supporting manufacturer vendor assessment efficiently.
Pricing
Medical device adverse event reporting pricing depends on complaint volume, intake channel count, international scope, and validation depth. Intake integration across service, sales, and customer channels is frequently the largest component, ahead of submission mechanics. Discovery produces an itemized, fixed-scope estimate with phase-level breakdown. Gateway fees, cloud infrastructure, and platform licensing are separate from engineering cost and itemized clearly.
MVP or Single Module
An MVP covering complaint intake and reportability workflow typically runs $40,000 to $80,000 with proportionate validation.
Full Platform Build
A full platform with investigation tracking, eMDR submission, and trending typically falls between $80,000 and $200,000.
Enterprise Deployment
Enterprise engagements covering international vigilance, portfolio scale, and full validation start at $200,000.
Discovery Phase Scoping
Discovery is a paid, time-boxed phase producing an itemized estimate, architecture plan, and intake channel assessment.
Cost Drivers to Expect
Intake integration, international scope, complaint volume, and validation depth are the largest variables, identified during discovery.
Ongoing Support Costs
Post-launch regulatory changes, international additions, revalidation, and support are quoted separately as a retainer sized to complaint volume.
Get Started
If you are evaluating medical device adverse event reporting software for complaint intake, reportability workflow, eMDR submission, or investigation tracking, the fastest next step is a discovery call with our team. We will map intake channels and assess timeline performance, then return an itemized, fixed-scope estimate. Contact us to schedule that conversation.
FAQs
Frequently Asked Questions
Quality and regulatory leaders evaluating medical device adverse event reporting software usually ask about reportability automation, why reports go late, and how this differs from pharmaceutical safety systems. The answers below reflect how we scope these projects.
No. Reportability is a regulated determination made by qualified personnel against defined criteria. The system presents criteria, documents the decision path, and records rationale. Automating that judgment would place a regulated determination in software, which is neither appropriate nor defensible during inspection.
Usually because the complaint reached quality late. The clock runs from awareness anywhere in the organization, so a report sitting in a service queue for two weeks consumes most of the timeline before quality sees it. Intake routing is the fix, not faster filing.
The determination is different. Device reporting evaluates malfunction and device involvement against MDR criteria, while pharmacovigilance assesses drug causality. Timelines, submission formats, and investigation approaches all differ accordingly, so device reporting needs purpose-built configuration rather than an adapted drug safety system.
An MVP covering intake and reportability workflow runs $40,000 to $80,000. A full platform typically falls between $80,000 and $200,000. Enterprise deployments with international vigilance start at $200,000. Intake integration drives cost most.
Where in scope, yes, though criteria and timelines differ by jurisdiction and cannot be mirrored from the FDA determination. Each authority requires its own assessment against its own rules, which we configure separately rather than deriving from one reportability decision.
They still require documentation and investigation under quality system requirements, independent of MDR status. Systems scoped only around reportable events leave the majority of complaints handled informally, which is itself an inspection finding waiting to happen.