EU MDR post-market work requires more than complaint handling. Manufacturers need a documented system and plan that actively collects safety and performance data, updates technical documentation and clinical evaluation, and feeds vigilance decisions.
This page helps structure plans, PMCF updates, PMS reports or PSURs, serious incident and FSCA reporting, trend reporting, EUDAMED caveats, and the evidence records reviewers will expect.
Under EU MDR Articles 83 to 89, and vigilance are linked systems: PMS continuously gathers and analyses market data, while vigilance escalates serious incidents, , field safety notices, and reportable trends. Keep a traceable record from each complaint or signal through evaluation, reportability decision, CAPA or FSCA, clinical evaluation update, and technical documentation update.
1
Section 1
PMS system and plan
For each device, the manufacturer must plan, establish, document, implement, maintain, and update a system proportionate to risk class and device type. The system belongs inside the quality management system and must actively and systematically gather, record, and analyse quality, performance, and safety data throughout the device lifetime.
The plan is the operating document for that system. Annex III expects it to cover serious incidents, information, FSCAs, non-serious incidents, undesirable side-effects, trend reporting, literature, registers or databases, user feedback, complaints, distributor and importer inputs, public information about similar devices, assessment methods, indicators, thresholds, complaint investigation tools, communication methods, corrective-action procedures, traceability tools, and a PMCF plan or a justified reason why PMCF is not applicable.
MDCG 2025-10 clarifies that each device must be covered by a plan, although one plan may cover a clearly identified group of devices. The plan should state what is monitored, how often, which methods apply, and why those methods fit the device's risk profile. Proactive collection means actively seeking information from suitable sources instead of waiting for complaints.
Define data streams before launch: complaints, support cases, service records, distributor/importer feedback, literature searches, registries, similar-device signals, vigilance events, CAPA, PMCF outputs, and sales or exposure data.
Set device-specific indicators and threshold values for benefit-risk reassessment instead of relying on open-ended complaint review.
Document how the team characterises performance, compares the device with similar products, investigates complaints, escalates trend signals, and traces devices that may need corrective action.
Keep the plan in technical documentation for non-custom-made devices and update the technical documentation when PMS data changes risk management, clinical evaluation, labelling, IFU, SSCP, CAPA, or FSCA conclusions.
Articles 83 and 84 require a documented PMS system and PMS plan; Annex III lists the PMS plan data streams, methods, thresholds, communication methods, corrective-action procedures, traceability tools, and PMCF linkage.
plan, establish, document, implement, maintain and update
Current non-binding MDCG guidance on PMS plan scope, proactive data collection, method selection, device-grouping rationale, QMS interfaces, and management review.
Each device must be covered by a PMS plan
Recommended next step
Review EU MDR PMS and vigilance evidence
Map PMS data streams, PMCF updates, PMS report or PSUR outputs, vigilance triage, FSCA/FSN handling, trend thresholds, and EUDAMED or alternative submission records into one reviewable evidence trail.
PMCF is a continuous process that updates the clinical evaluation. It must be addressed in the plan and uses clinical data from real use of the CE-marked device within its intended purpose to confirm safety and performance, keep identified risks acceptable, and detect emerging risks.
The PMCF plan should be device-specific. It should name the general methods, such as clinical experience, user feedback, scientific literature, and other clinical data sources, plus any specific methods such as registries or PMCF studies. It should also connect to the clinical evaluation report and risk management file, explain why the chosen methods are appropriate, and define a justified schedule for PMCF activities and reporting.
Record the device description, intended purpose, target population, indications, contraindications, and accessories covered by the PMCF scope.
Tie every PMCF activity to a reason: clinical evaluation gaps, risk management findings, previous PMCF results, signals, notified-body requests, or unanswered safety and performance questions.
Analyse PMCF findings in a PMCF evaluation report and feed the conclusions into the clinical evaluation report, technical documentation, and risk management.
When PMCF is not planned, keep the justification in the plan and expect it to be reviewed with the clinical evaluation and risk file.
Article 61 and Annex XIV require clinical evaluation to be updated with PMCF and PMS data and require PMCF plans, PMCF evaluation reports, and technical documentation updates.
continuous process that updates the clinical evaluation
MDCG 2020-7 provides a PMCF plan structure covering manufacturer details, device description, general and specific PMCF methods, links to technical documentation, equivalent or similar device data, standards or guidance, and the estimated PMCF evaluation report date.
Activities related to PMCF
3
Section 3
PMS report and PSUR outputs
The output changes by device class. Class I manufacturers prepare a report that summarises PMS data analysis, conclusions, and the rationale and description for preventive or corrective actions. Class IIa, IIb, and III manufacturers prepare a for each device and, where relevant, each category or group of devices.
A should summarise analysis, conclusions, preventive and corrective actions, benefit-risk conclusions, main PMCF findings, sales volume, estimated population using the device, population characteristics, and usage frequency where practicable. MDCG 2022-21 treats the PSUR as a stand-alone, organised, searchable document that summarises results and conclusions rather than duplicating every PMS record.
For class IIb and class III devices, update the at least annually; for class IIa devices, update it when necessary and at least every two years.
For class III and implantable devices, MDR Article 86 routes submission through the Article 92 electronic system to the notified body once that workflow is operative. Until then, MDCG 2022-21 says manufacturers should apply national provisions and agree appropriate submission means with the notified body where needed. For other PSUR devices, make PSURs available to the notified body involved in conformity assessment and, upon request, to competent authorities.
Keep the / report connected to the PMS plan data collection period so reviewers can see which signals were included, which were excluded, and why.
Articles 85 and 86 define the PMS report for class I devices, PSUR duties for class IIa, IIb, and III devices, update frequency, PSUR content, and availability or submission routes.
MDCG 2022-21 explains PSUR objectives, grouping, content, data presentation, issuance, EUDAMED submission scenarios, and the absence-of-EUDAMED approach.
stand-alone document that can be assessed independently
4
Section 4
Serious incidents, FSCAs, FSNs, and trend reporting
Vigilance starts with reportability triage. MDR Article 87 requires manufacturers to report serious incidents involving Union-market devices, except expected side-effects that are clearly documented, quantified in technical documentation, and handled through Article 88 trend reporting. Article 87 also requires reporting of FSCAs for Union-market devices, including third-country FSCAs for a device also legally available in the Union unless the reason is limited to the third-country device.
MDCG 2023-3 frames a reportable serious incident around three checks: an incident occurred, it led or might lead to a serious health or public-health outcome, and a causal relationship with the manufacturer's device is established, reasonably possible, or suspected. If the manufacturer is uncertain whether a potentially reportable incident is reportable, the MDR requires reporting within the applicable timeframe.
Use Article 87 timelines in the vigilance SOP: serious incidents immediately and no later than 15 calendar days after awareness; serious public health threats immediately and no later than 2 days; death or unanticipated serious deterioration immediately after causality is established or suspected and no later than 10 days after awareness.
When information is incomplete, submit an initial report on time and follow with additional information rather than waiting for a full root-cause investigation.
For an FSCA, report in advance unless urgency requires immediate action, then issue an FSN without delay to affected users or customers.
Make the FSN identify the device, include relevant UDIs, identify the manufacturer by SRN where available, explain the malfunction and associated risks without understating the risk, and state the user actions clearly.
For trend reporting, define in the plan the incidents, expected undesirable side-effects, statistical method, thresholds, and observation period used to detect significant increases affecting benefit-risk.
A defensible and vigilance file should show the route from signal to decision. Keep the raw signal, triage, reportability assessment, trend calculation, risk analysis, benefit-risk conclusion, CAPA or FSCA decision, communications, authority submissions, notified-body interactions, and the updates made to clinical evaluation and technical documentation.
EUDAMED is part of the MDR reporting architecture. The Actor, UDI/Device, Notified Bodies and Certificates, and Market Surveillance modules became mandatory on 28 May 2026, but the Commission still lists the Vigilance and Post-Market Surveillance module as in development. MDCG 2024-11 says manufacturers and authorised representatives must continue using national processes until that module becomes mandatory. Keep evidence of the route used now and prepare to move open follow-up actions into EUDAMED when the module becomes mandatory; the guidance does not require retrospective entry of the original report.
system and PMS plan versions, with approval history and links to QMS procedures.
Complaint, feedback, literature, registry, public database, distributor/importer, service, and sales/exposure data used in analysis.
Clinical evaluation updates, PMCF plan, PMCF evaluation report, and justification for any PMCF not performed.
report or versions, data collection periods, grouping rationale, benefit-risk conclusion, CAPA summary, PMCF findings, sales volume, population estimate, and usage-frequency basis.
Vigilance records: MIRs, initial and follow-up reports, final reports, FSCA forms, FSNs, draft FSN authority comments, distribution evidence, UDI/SRN references, authority correspondence, and periodic summary reporting agreements where used.
Trend-reporting workpapers showing expected frequency or severity, actual counts, statistical method, observation period, threshold breach analysis, and whether the benefit-risk analysis changed.
Annex III requires PMS technical documentation to be clear, organised, searchable, and unambiguous; Articles 83 to 89 specify the records needed to support PMS, PSUR/PMS report, trend, serious incident, FSCA, and FSN decisions.
clear, organised, readily searchable and unambiguous
The EUDAMED information centre describes the system, its lifecycle role, and its modules, including vigilance and post-market surveillance, which supports the caveat to keep route evidence for EUDAMED or alternative submissions.
Confirms that four EUDAMED modules became mandatory on 28 May 2026 and that the Vigilance and Post-Market Surveillance module remains under development.
MDCG 2022-21 identifies PSUR evidence elements such as device scope, reference number, version, data collection period, grouping rationale, sales volume, population estimate, vigilance data, CAPA, PMCF findings, and benefit-risk conclusion.
Current transition guidance confirming continued national vigilance processes until the VGL module becomes mandatory and explaining how open reports move into EUDAMED.
economic operators need to continue using the national processes
Primary MDR source for PMS system and plan duties, PMS report, PSUR, serious incident reporting, FSCA/FSN handling, trend reporting, PMCF linkage, and PMS technical documentation.
Articles 83 and 84 require a documented PMS system and PMS plan; Annex III lists the PMS plan data streams, methods, thresholds, communication methods, corrective-action procedures, traceability tools, and PMCF linkage.
Article 61 and Annex XIV require clinical evaluation to be updated with PMCF and PMS data and require PMCF plans, PMCF evaluation reports, and technical documentation updates.
Show 3 more
Articles 85 and 86 define the PMS report for class I devices, PSUR duties for class IIa, IIb, and III devices, update frequency, PSUR content, and availability or submission routes.
Articles 87, 88, and 89 define serious incident and FSCA reporting, trend reporting, investigations, FSN content, and competent-authority evaluation.
Annex III requires PMS technical documentation to be clear, organised, searchable, and unambiguous; Articles 83 to 89 specify the records needed to support PMS, PSUR/PMS report, trend, serious incident, FSCA, and FSN decisions.
"post-market surveillance system"
More quoted passages
"plan, establish, document, implement, maintain and update"
"continuous process that updates the clinical evaluation"
"periodic safety update report"
"serious incidents and field safety corrective actions"
"clear, organised, readily searchable and unambiguous"
MDCG guidance source for PSUR objectives, content, grouping, preparation, EUDAMED scenarios, and absence-of-EUDAMED handling.
MDCG 2022-21 explains PSUR objectives, grouping, content, data presentation, issuance, EUDAMED submission scenarios, and the absence-of-EUDAMED approach.
MDCG 2022-21 identifies PSUR evidence elements such as device scope, reference number, version, data collection period, grouping rationale, sales volume, population estimate, vigilance data, CAPA, PMCF findings, and benefit-risk conclusion.
"Periodic Safety Update Report"
More quoted passages
"stand-alone document that can be assessed independently"
Commission EUDAMED source for the database lifecycle role and module context, including vigilance and post-market surveillance.
The EUDAMED information centre describes the system, its lifecycle role, and its modules, including vigilance and post-market surveillance, which supports the caveat to keep route evidence for EUDAMED or alternative submissions.
MDCG template source for PMCF plan sections, methods, links to technical documentation, and PMCF evaluation report planning.
MDCG 2020-7 provides a PMCF plan structure covering manufacturer details, device description, general and specific PMCF methods, links to technical documentation, equivalent or similar device data, standards or guidance, and the estimated PMCF evaluation report date.
Current source for the national-process interim route and transition of open vigilance actions when the VGL module becomes mandatory.
Current transition guidance confirming continued national vigilance processes until the VGL module becomes mandatory and explaining how open reports move into EUDAMED.
"The VGL module is not available for voluntary use"
More quoted passages
"economic operators need to continue using the national processes"
Current MDCG guidance for PMS system operation, PMS planning, proactive collection, analysis, action, and QMS interfaces.
Current non-binding MDCG guidance on PMS plan scope, proactive data collection, method selection, device-grouping rationale, QMS interfaces, and management review.
Confirms that four EUDAMED modules became mandatory on 28 May 2026 and that the Vigilance and Post-Market Surveillance module remains under development.