Independent learning for embedded-systems engineersHardware · Firmware · Software
TEA-303STANDARDS & GUIDANCEMEDICAL SOFTWARE

IEC 62304 — Medical-device software lifecycle

Understand the lifecycle processes used to develop and maintain medical-device software, from planning and architecture to problem resolution and change.

After this module, you should be able to:

  • Explain the purpose and scope of IEC 62304
  • Relate software safety classification to process rigour
  • Identify core development and maintenance activities
  • Connect risk controls, SOUP and traceability to evidence
01 / INTENT

IEC 62304 controls the software lifecycle; it does not define the whole medical device.

IEC 62304 provides processes, activities and tasks for medical-device software development and maintenance. It is used alongside device-level risk management, quality management, usability, product safety and regulatory requirements.

Software safety classification—A, B or C—scales specified lifecycle activities according to the harm that could result from a software failure, considering external risk-control measures where applicable. Classification must be reasoned from the device risk analysis, not chosen from product reputation.

CLASSIFYAssess possible harmSoftware contribution to hazardous situations
DEVELOPControl the lifecyclePlans, requirements, architecture, implementation and tests
MAINTAINSustain the productProblems, changes, releases and configuration
The software system is not the device risk model.Trace device hazards and risk controls into software, while keeping system-level responsibility for the complete hazardous sequence.
02 / FRAMEWORK

Translate the framework into controlled engineering work.

AreaQuestionTypical evidence
PlanningHow will lifecycle activities, tools, configuration and problem resolution be controlled?Software development plan
RequirementsWhat must software do, including risk controls and interfaces?Software requirements specification
Architecture and designHow are items, segregation, interfaces and SOUP structured?Architecture and detailed design evidence
Implementation and verificationHow are units, integrations and the software system verified?Reviews, analyses and test results
MaintenanceHow are problems, changes and releases assessed and controlled?Maintenance and problem-resolution records

Apply the current controlled source

This module is an orientation. Confirm the applicable edition, amendments, adopted regional version, contractual commitments and sector-specific interpretations before defining compliance.

03 / APPLICATION

Use a risk-based application sequence.

  1. 1. Define the software system, boundaries, items and release model
  2. 2. Establish the safety classification and document its rationale
  3. 3. Plan development, configuration, risk-management support and problem resolution
  4. 4. Trace system needs and risk controls into testable software requirements
  5. 5. Define architecture, segregation, interfaces and SOUP controls
  6. 6. Verify units, integrations and system requirements; retain anomalies and release evidence

Worked application: infusion-rate control

A device risk control limits programmed delivery and detects motor or sensor faults. The software requirements specify limits, units, timing and responses. Architecture separates user input, therapy control and monitoring. Tests trace boundary values and injected faults back to the risk-control requirements.

04 / EVIDENCE

Build evidence that explains the reasoning.

Development plan

Lifecycle model, standards, tools, roles and deliverables.

Safety classification

Class and rationale based on possible harm.

Requirements set

Functional, interface, performance and risk-control requirements.

Architecture

Items, interfaces, segregation, SOUP and data/control flow.

Verification package

Protocols, results, anomalies and traceability.

Release record

Configuration, unresolved anomalies and approval.

Common failure patterns

Document-only adoption

Templates exist but do not reflect actual engineering work.

Classification by intuition

Class is selected without a device-risk rationale.

SOUP inventory only

Third-party software lacks requirements, risk and anomaly evaluation.

Testing without traceability

Results cannot show which requirement and build were verified.

05 / REFERENCES

Further learning

KEY TAKEAWAY

Use the standard to strengthen decisions, not decorate them.

Make scope, tailoring, responsibilities, technical reasoning and objective evidence explicit—and always work from the current authorised text.