Monthly Non-Conformance / Customer Complaint Review

Review Date: July 2026
Review Period: Approximately the last six months of issues reviewed. Based on the supplied report.

1. Executive Summary

Overall assessment: Minor Concerns

The report is largely consistent with a well-controlled Quality Management System. As expected, the vast majority of entries are routine audit activities, automated order error logs, administrative reviews or return-to-supplier investigations that have already been assessed and concluded as requiring no CAPA.

Approximate breakdown
Issues reviewed: ~70+
Items requiring management attention: 4
Overall quality status: Minor Concerns – System remains under control

There is no evidence of deterioration in the QMS.

2. New Issues Requiring Management Attention
Issue 401567

0110229 QA Data Requires Risk / Non-Conformance Review (July 2026)

Summary

High QA failures identified for one product with unacceptable date codes.

Why it matters

Although this is marked as an information issue, unacceptable date codes have now appeared alongside previous supplier age/date-code concerns.

Recommended Action
Continue monthly trend monitoring.
Compare against previous Teledyne batches.
Escalate only if the trend continues or customer impact occurs.

Priority: Medium

Issue 401472

BOX1065 – Old date code sensors received from supplier

Summary

Another batch of old-date-code sensors received from Teledyne.

Why it matters

This is not a Viamed non-conformance, however it represents another supplier quality occurrence.

This follows similar events previously reviewed.

Recommended Action

Continue supplier trend analysis.

If further occurrences arise, raise formally with supplier management.

Priority: Medium

Issue 401113

BOX1073 – Old date code sensors

Summary

Further occurrence of aged oxygen sensors received.

Why it matters

This strengthens the supplier trend already seen over recent months.

Although returns are appropriate, the repeated nature should remain visible during supplier review.

Recommended Action

Maintain supplier performance monitoring.

Consider discussing cumulative occurrences during supplier review meetings.

Priority: Medium

Issue 397289 (Still Open)
Stock memos not being read
Summary

Production reports office staff continue missing stock memo instructions.

Robert has agreed to monitor improvement following further staff discussions.

Why it matters

Unlike isolated order errors, this has now been specifically identified as a recurring behavioural issue.

Potential consequences include:

delayed production
delayed customer deliveries
increased internal rework
Recommended Action

Monitor for another month.

If repeated again, consider:

refresher training
acknowledgement mechanism for critical stock memos
targeted CAPA if recurrence continues

Priority: Medium

3. Recurring Trends
Supplier Quality

Continued reports of:

aged stock
old manufacturing date codes
oxygen sensor returns

These continue to appear but remain appropriately managed by:

returning goods to supplier
recording trend data
deciding no internal CAPA

Current evidence still indicates a supplier monitoring issue rather than an internal process failure.

Office Order Errors

Routine office mistakes continue, including:

pricing
memo omissions
dispatch promises
carriage
checking
stock availability
Shopify fulfilment
postcode errors

These are generally:

low impact
individually corrected
already fed back to staff

No evidence suggests the error rate is increasing significantly.

Personnel Dependency

Several completed audits identified the same observation:

heavy reliance on Derek
reliance on Helen
some processes having only one trained individual

This appears repeatedly across:

Calibration
Production
Post Market Surveillance
Handling & Storage

Although not a non-conformance, it is a genuine organisational resilience risk and should remain on the Management Review agenda.

Audit Programme

The internal audit programme appears healthy.

Recent audits consistently concluded:

PASS
No Non-Conformances

Observations primarily relate to:

resilience
documentation improvements
process maturity

This is a positive indication of QMS effectiveness.

4. Follow-up Required

Continue monitoring:

Supplier Date Code Trend

Continue watching repeated aged Teledyne sensors.

No escalation yet, but trend should remain visible.

Stock Memo Compliance

Review next month's error log.

If failures continue, formal corrective action may become appropriate.

Observation 399444

Calibration COP / "How To" document remains a worthwhile improvement.

Completion should be monitored.

Cross-training

Several audits recommend reducing reliance on key personnel.

Continue implementing:

backup staff
cross-training
succession planning
5. Overall Assessment

The Quality Management System continues to appear stable and under control.

The report contains exactly what would be expected from a mature management system:

numerous automated monitoring issues,
routine office corrections,
supplier returns,
completed audits,
periodic reviews.

Importantly:

No significant customer complaint trend was identified.
No evidence of increasing internal process failure.
No significant regulatory concerns were identified.
No product safety concerns requiring immediate escalation were found.
No new CAPA candidates were identified from the evidence reviewed.

The only areas that continue to warrant management monitoring are:

Repeated supplier date-code/aged stock issues from Teledyne.
Ongoing compliance with stock memo instructions.
Organisational resilience through increased cross-training and reduced dependency on a small number of key personnel.
Management Conclusion

This month's review does not indicate any deterioration in the effectiveness of the Quality Management System. Operational controls appear effective, audits continue to report no significant non-conformances, customer complaints remain minimal, and identified issues are generally being corrected through normal operational management without requiring formal CAPA escalation. Continued monitoring of supplier performance and organisational resilience is recommended, but the QMS remains effective and under control.
