[ HOW-TO GUIDE ]

How to Perform a Quality Risk Assessment

Apply ICH Q9 without drowning in RPN numbers.

What a how-to is not

A how-to is SPEQ’s practitioner method, not a procedure. It does not replace your own SOP, it is not a validated approach, and the judgement calls in it belong to your quality unit.

Quality risk management (ICH Q9(R1)) is how you make science- and risk-based decisions about product quality — which changes need what controls, where to focus validation, how much to worry about a deviation. A good risk assessment answers a specific question with proportionate rigour; a bad one generates a spreadsheet of numbers no one acts on.

THE STEPS
  1. 1

    Define the question and scope

    State the specific decision the assessment must inform — "what controls does this change need?", not "assess the risk of the process". A risk assessment without a question produces analysis without a decision.

  2. 2

    Assemble a cross-functional team

    Risk lives across functions — manufacturing, QC, engineering, regulatory. A single-function assessment misses hazards the other functions see every day.

  3. 3

    Identify the hazards

    List what could go wrong and how it could harm product quality or the patient. Breadth here matters more than precision — a hazard you never name cannot be controlled.

  4. 4

    Analyse the risk

    Assess each risk — commonly by severity, probability, and detectability — using a tool fit for the question (FMEA, HACCP, risk ranking). The tool is a means to a decision, not the deliverable.

  5. 5

    Evaluate against criteria

    Compare the analysed risk to pre-defined acceptability criteria. Deciding acceptability after seeing the numbers invites bias; set the threshold first.

  6. 6

    Control the risk

    For unacceptable risks, reduce them (eliminate, mitigate, add controls) or formally accept them with justification. Then confirm the controls actually lower the risk you were worried about.

  7. 7

    Communicate and review

    Record the assessment, communicate the decisions, and define what triggers a review — a change, a deviation, new data. Risk assessments go stale; a review trigger keeps them live.

USE THE TEMPLATE
Quality Risk Assessment (QRA) — Type 1
Skip the blank page — start from SPEQ’s structured, regulator-aligned template for this procedure. Open the template →
COMMON PITFALLS
  • !RPN worship — treating the risk-priority number as the answer instead of a prompt for judgement.
  • !Setting acceptability criteria after seeing the scores.
  • !False precision — fine-grained numbers on coarse, subjective inputs.
  • !No review trigger, so the assessment is never revisited when the process changes.

How to Perform a Quality Risk Assessment: frequently asked questions

Common questions on perform a quality risk assessment.

Which risk tool should I use — FMEA, HACCP, or risk ranking?

Whichever fits the question. FMEA suits failure-mode analysis of a process or design; HACCP suits process flows with critical control points; simple risk ranking suits a bounded decision. ICH Q9 is deliberately tool-agnostic — pick the lightest tool that answers the question, not the most elaborate.

What is wrong with relying on the RPN?

The risk-priority number (severity × probability × detectability) is a prompt, not a verdict. Coarse, subjective inputs produce numbers with false precision, and a low RPN can still hide a high-severity risk. Use it to focus discussion, then apply judgement — especially to anything with severe consequences.

When should a risk assessment be reviewed?

When something changes the risk — a process or equipment change, a deviation, a complaint trend, or new data — or on a defined periodic cadence for critical assessments. Building the review trigger into the assessment is what keeps it from going stale.

Do I set acceptability criteria before or after scoring?

Before. Defining what "acceptable" means after you have seen the scores invites confirmation bias — the threshold quietly moves to match the answer you want. Set the criteria up front so the evaluation is honest.