Blogs

MedTech

Software as a medical device (SAMD) - classification overview

By

Wendy Levine

February 7, 2022

4 min read

What is software as a medical device (SaMD)?

As the pace of technological innovation continues to increase, the definition of what constitutes a medical device also continues to evolve as countries update regulations.  In 2013, the International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF) created the Software as a Medical Device working group. Currently chaired by the U.S. FDA, the working group is chartered with developing guidance that encourages innovation while assuring safe and effective products. While SaMD is regulated differently in different countries, this article will focus on the many similarities, and some differences, between the FDA regulations in the U.S. and the MDR regulations in the EU.

In general, medical device software falls into 3 different categories:

  • Software as a Medical Device (SaMD): The IMDRF defines SaMD as “software intended to be used for one or more medical purposes that perform these purposes without being part of a hardware medical device.” We list specific examples below, but typically the software classified as SaMD isdesigned to run on generally available hardware, such as Windows computers or mobile devices, or online in the “cloud”. While they may be utilizing data from another medical device, SaMD performs its function independently of any medical equipment or hardware.  
  • Software in a Medical Device: Sometimes referred to as SiMD, Software in a medical device cannot operate separately from its device, or perform its primary function without the device. For example, the software used to program and run an MRI machine would be useless without the MRI machine. Software in this category is regulated together, and as part of, the whole device.
  • Software as an Accessory to a Medical Device: Similarly to Software in a Medical Device, software in this category cannot fulfill a medical purpose on their own. In some cases, a manufacturer may be able to bundle or embed the software in the medical device (making it SiMD) and/or also sell the software separately, making it an accessory.

Similarly, in Europe, the European Commission’s Medical Device Group (MDCG) defines Medical Device Software (MDSW) as a having its own intended purpose. Software which controls a medical device or is otherwise part of a medical device and does not serve a separate medical purpose does not qualify as MDSW, but is regulated by the MDR.

Software in the SaMD category is both a medical device AND software - with relevant regulatory and quality considerations that are specific and unique to each category, yet which must work in tandem. For example, software development best-practices, referenced by the IMDRF SaMD working group, call for iterative feedback loops allowing for quick turnaround of feature requests and bug fixes. While the ability to provide the latest technology and features to the market is an important advantage with SaMD, it does not supersede applicable medical device regulations governing patient safety and efficacy.  

Examples of software as a medical device (SaMD)

Because SaMD software, by definition, is capable of running independently of any specific medical device or hardware, there is a relatively clear line between Software as a Medical Device and other medical software:

Software as Medical Device (SaMD) Not SaMD
Software that evaluates MRI images and makes diagnosis recommendations. Software that controls an MRI machine (SiMD).
A mobile app that monitors a patient’s heart rate or glucose levels and makes treatment recommendations to the patient and/or patient’s doctor. Software that allows a patient to control their insulin pump based on glucose readings (SiMD).
An application, based on machine learning algorithms, that reviews patient health data and makes treatment recommendations. Software that securely stores patient health and treatment history (Digital Health Records or Medical Information System).

SaMD regulatory overview and framework

Why does SaMD have independent regulatory considerations?

Over the past decade, the IMDRF, FDA, and other regulatory bodies have worked to better align regulations with the quickly evolving capabilities and nature of digital devices. Software-only devices (SaMD) generate unique opportunities and considerations:

Because SaMD software typically runs on publicly available hardware:

  • SaMD software must not only be designed to work on specific platforms (usually multiple), but must also be tested and updated frequently as new hardware and operating systems become available.  
  • Agile software development methodologies can provide an environment in which fast product feedback loops are supported within the required regulatory framework.

Because SaMD software can be made readily available to the general public, or specific patient groups, using their own devices:

  • SaMD software can generate faster user/patient feedback - both for medical professionals and for the device manufacturer. Given this environment, regulatory bodies generally want to enable the market to safely take advantage of new innovations as quickly as possible.
  • Product testing needs to take into account the unique and varied environments in which the software may be used, potentially in environments the product is not intended for. The software developer cannot control updates to operating systems or internet browsers, other software that may be running on a user’s device, or the ability for the user to potentially share software or data with others.
  • The advantages of quickly delivering product fixes and updates need to be measured against potentially introducing new, possibly misunderstood or unwanted features, to all users at once.  

SaMD and MDSW risk-based categories

As with all medical devices, the FDA and European MDR classify SaMD and MDSW, respectively, based on the potential impact to patient or public health. The SaMD categorization framework from the IMDRF is an effort “to introduce a foundational approach, harmonized vocabulary, and general and specific considerations, for manufacturers, regulators, and users alike to address the unique challenges associated with the use of SaMD...” This framework provides guidance only for today’s medical software developers, as well as regulatory bodies, such as the FDA. The chart below lists these risk categories by the state of the healthcare situation or condition and by the significance of the information provided by the SAMD:

SaMD categories

State of healthcare situation or condition Treat or diagnose Drive clinical management Inform clinical management
Critical IV III II
Serious III II I
Non-serious II I I

SaMD Category I:  

SaMD Category I software can provide information for both Serious and Non-Serious health conditions or diseases. Software dealing with serious conditions can be classified in Category I only if it is providing information to inform, not drive, clinical management and is of low impact. Otherwise, Category I SaMD software provides information related to non-serious diseases or health conditions.

Example: Software that collects exercise-related data, such as heart rate, number of steps, and distance walked. If the information is stored and/or transmitted for use by a qualified professional the software is considered to be in Category I, as long as the information is not used by the software to make treatment recommendations directly to the patient or healthcare provider.

SaMD Category II:

SaMD software in Category II may be used to provide information relevant to a non-serious, serious, or critical healthcare condition or disease, depending on the significance of the information it provides to the healthcare decision. Software that is used to treat or diagnose a health condition is only classified in Category II for non-serious health conditions. Software that provides information regarding serious or critical health conditions or diseases will be classified in Category II only if it provides information to drive or inform, respectively, clinical management decisions (as opposed to providing treatment or diagnosis recommendations directly).

Example: SaMD that monitors a diabetic patient’s carbohydrate intake and blood glucose level to calculate recommended insulin dose.

SaMD Category III:

SaMD software that provides information to treat or diagnose serious conditions - or which drives clinical management for a critical condition - is classified in Category III.

Example: SaMD that analyzes individual data from at-risk populations for a specific type of cancer, and is used to develop preventative intervention strategies.

SaMD Category IV:

SaMD Category IV software provides information used to treat or diagnose a critical health condition and is considered to be very high impact.

Example: SaMD that evaluates images of skin lesions in order to determine malignancy.  

For SaMD intended to be used in multiple healthcare situations, the software will be categorized at the highest category according to the SaMD definition statement.

SaMD within the FDA and MDR regulatory framework

The graph below relates SaMD categories with FDA medical device classes, and further identifies where an independent review is recommended by the FDA. For additional information see Software as a Medical Device (SaMD): Clinical Evaluation.  Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff.

Note that FDA regulatory classifications more closely align with the IMDF’s SaMD categories than do those defined by under the European MDR. In the U.S., a device is classified by identifying similar, predicate devices. The simpler 510(k) pre-market submission can be used if a manufacturer can show that their device is substantially equivalent to a Class I or II device. With few exceptions, devices that are Class III are subject to the more rigorous Pre-Market Authorization (PMA) process.  Devices where no substantial equivalent can be shown are subject to to the PMA or De Novo regulatory submissions processes.  The De Novo process was implemented in 2010 to provide a pathway for novel devices with lower risk profiles.

Medical Device Software is classified by the European Commission’s Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) into Class I, II, or III. For devices falling under the IVDR, the MDR defines four classes using letters; A, B, C, and D.

Intervention type Treat or diagnose Drive clinical management Informs clinical management
Critical III IIb IIa
Serious IIb IIa IIa
Non-serious IIa IIa IIa

In the EU, a rules-based framework is used to classify devices. MDSW classification is relatively complex, using a series of 22 “waterfalling” rules with yes/no questions that lead to a final classification of each device. While we won’t go into detail in this article on each of the rules, Rule 11 does deserve discussion. (You can read the Guidance on Classification of Software for MDR and IVDR here).

The MDR’s “rule 11” regarding MDSW classification was released in 2017. This rule  states, in part, that “Software intended to provide information which is used to take decisions with diagnosis or therapeutic purposes is classified as class IIa.” The rule then provides 2 exceptions that increase the MDSW classification in cases where the decisions could cause “a serious deterioration of a person’s state of health or a surgical intervention” (class IIb), or could cause “death or an irreversible deterioration of a person’s state of health” (class III).

As a result of this rule, very few MDSW products can be classified as Class I, meaning that the majority of MDSW is subject to conformity assessments by a Notified Body. Medical software manufacturers marketing their product in Europe should therefore not rely on previous product classifications as a guide.

The future of regulatory approval for software as a medical device (SaMD)

The FDA recently released a new draft guidance document addressing the Content of Premarket Submissions for Device Software Functions. This is a major update of the 2005 guidance on pre-market submissions for software in medical devices and is also long overdue, given the pace of change in the software industry (the FDA originally committed to delivering this update in their fiscal year 2019 as part of the MDUFA IV agreement). This guidance sets out requirements for all pre-market submissions, including 510(k), DeNovo, and PMA submissions.

The recent draft document provides additional guidance around the documentation required for premarket submissions. It defines an “enhanced” level of documentation required for software that is a Class III device, combination product, Blood Establishment Computer software, or when the failure of the software would present probable risk of death or serious injury.  

Staying on top of medical device classifications

Classifying a medical device and gaining regulatory clearance can be a complex process, especially if the device contains software or other emerging technology where some regulatory bodies may be further along than others in developing applicable regulations. For additional information about some of the common pathways to market for new products in the U.S., read our Beginner’s Guide to the FDA 510(k) and Beginner’s Guide to the FDA De Novo Classification Process.

Interested in learning how Rimsys can automate your submission process? Request a custom demo of our RIM platform.

Similar posts

How Smith & Nephew Repositioned Regulatory as a Strategic Commercial Partner

MedTech

RIM

How Smith & Nephew Repositioned Regulatory as a Strategic Commercial Partner

By

Caroline La

May 28, 2026

4 min read

Smith & Nephew is a global medical device manufacturerwith a broad portfolio spanning orthopedics, sports medicine, and woundmanagement, sold and registered across markets worldwide. Before Rimsys,regulatory data was scattered across spreadsheets, shared drives, anddisconnected systems.

When Smith & Nephew selected Rimsys, they deployed itenterprise-wide from day one. Executive reporting moved from manual fire drillsto real-time dashboards. Change impact assessments became faster and moreconsistent. The regulatory team made the shift from reactive compliancefunction to strategic partner to the business.

The Challenge

Regulatory data at Smith & Nephew lived in multiplespreadsheets, shared drives, SharePoint sites, emails, and disconnectedsystems. Without a centralized record, the team could not reliably trackregistration timelines, measure on-time submissions, assess change impacts, orunderstand the downstream impact of product changes across markets. Preparingexecutive reporting meant manually assembling data from multiple sources, aprocess that consumed time and introduced risk each time.

The Solution

Smith & Nephew selected Rimsys for its configurable, notcustomized, platform: an intuitive user interface, centralized submissionmanagement, robust metrics, change assessment capabilities, and UDI supportwith machine-to-machine transmission. Rimsys’ interconnected modulearchitecture linked products, registrations, projects, change assessments, andUDI in a centralized location.

Rather than piloting in one business unit, Smith &Nephew deployed Rimsys across the entire regulatory organization from day one.The decision was deliberate: a partial deployment would have preserved thefragmentation. Enterprise-wide adoption established consistent metrics,standardized processes, and a single source of truth from the start.

The Results

Executive and board reporting, previously built from manualdata pulls, now flows directly from Rimsys in real time. What had been adisruptive, recurring effort is now a routine view. Leadership has thevisibility to make faster, more confident decisions, and the regulatory team isno longer pulled into reporting fire drills.

Change management has also been transformed. Direct linkagebetween products, registrations, and projects means impact assessments arefaster and less dependent on individual knowledge. UDI operations havesimilarly improved: machine-to-machine transmission has reduced manual uploadsand centralized DI record visibility supports global UDI requirements.

The most significant shift is strategic. With centralizedregulatory intelligence and real-time data, Smith & Nephew’s regulatoryteam now actively supports commercial planning: informing budget cycles,guiding renewal and launch sequencing, and advising on regulatory pathways toaccelerate market entry. Regulatory is no longer a downstream compliancefunction. It is a business partner.

Smith & Nephew now runs four modules across its RIM operation:

  • Registrations— Centralized license tracking across 250 countries and 30+ business units
  • Change Assessments— Direct product-registration linkage for faster, consistent impact assessments
  • Executive Reports— Real-time dashboards replacing manual data pulls and board reporting fire drills
  • UDI— Machine-to-machine transmission reducing manual uploads across global markets

Take this to your team

If you’re evaluating how to modernize RIM operations at scale, the Smith & Nephew case study is a practical reference to share internally. It covers the full implementation story, module breakdown, and results data in a format built for stakeholder conversations.

Download the Case Study

MedTech

RIM

How Philips Scaled Active Product Registrations More Than 20x

By

Caroline La

May 21, 2026

4 min read

Philips Healthcare operates one of the largest regulatory portfolios in global MedTech: products registered across 250 countries, with a footprint that grows with every acquisition. Before Rimsys, that complexity was managed through email and spreadsheets. Submission packages moved through inboxes with no audit trail, no performance data, and no reliable view of where products were authorized to ship.

Philips selected Rimsys in 2022 as the enterprise RIM platform to bring regulatory order to that complexity. Since go-live, active product registrations have scaled more than 20x, user adoption has doubled in the last six months, and the regulatory affairs function now operates from a single source of truth spanning the entire enterprise.

The Challenge

Without structured data, Philips could not measure regulatory performance, track license expiration across the portfolio, or identify where submission work was stalling. Every acquisition made it worse: incoming business units arrived with their own workflows and systems, absorbing more fragmentation rather than resolving it.

The Solution

Philips evaluated multiple platforms against requirements built with both market-facing and business regulatory affairs teams. Rimsys won on two dimensions: an interface that made complex product and registration data immediately visible, and more enterprise-ready features than competing platforms at the right price point.

Philips went live with Rimsys Registrations and Submissions modules in July 2022. The team deployed platform experts for train-the-trainer sessions and launched regular drop-in sessions where users could ask questions and surface issues. Standing up a dedicated Regulatory Operations team focused exclusively on rest-of-world registration accelerated adoption further.

When an early business unit pushed back on workflow efficiency, Philips and Rimsys worked through it together. A hands-on process walkthrough identified exactly what needed to change, a resolution plan was shared, and that transparency and collaboration became the foundation for sustained user buy-in across the enterprise.

The Results

Since go-live, Philips has scaled active product registrations more than 20x, with further growth already underway. What started as a single deployment now spans 30+ business units across 250 countries, with Rimsys serving as the single source of truth for regulatory data across the enterprise, including businesses acquired since implementation.

For the first time, Philips can measure its own regulatory performance. KPIs flow directly from the platform, giving leadership real-time visibility into registration health. When anomalies surface, they drive data correction and user training, closing gaps that previously went undetected until they affected revenue.

Now with Rimsys AI-assisted Submissions and Regulatory Intelligence now in use, Philips expects to accelerate further: reducing administrative burden so skilled regulatory professionals can focus on strategy.

Philips now runs four modules across its RIM operation:

  • Registrations— Centralized license tracking across 250 countries and 30+ business units
  • Submissions— AI-assisted submission workflows replacing email-based package management
  • Intelligence— Real-time KPI dashboards giving leadership visibility into registration health
  • Standards— Essential Principles and standards tracking aligned to global market requirements

Take this to your team

If you’re evaluating how to modernize RIM operations at scale, the Philips Healthcare case study is a practical reference to share internally. It covers the full implementation story, module breakdown, and results data in a format built for stakeholder conversations.

Download the Case Study

AI

RIM

UDI

EUDAMED

MedTech

What RAPS Euro Convergence 2026 Told Us About the Future of MedTech Regulation

By

Caroline La

May 12, 2026

4 min read

Last week, the MedTech regulatory community gathered in Lisbon for RAPS Euro Convergence 2026: nearly 100 sessions, hundreds of professionals, and one overriding theme: transformation.The European regulatory landscape is shifting faster than it has in two decades, and the pressure is on every RA team to keep pace.

We were there. And here is what we took away.

The Dominant Signal: Change Is Accelerating

For MedTech manufacturers, the immediate reality is demanding. MDR 2.0 is advancing. The EU AI Act is creating new compliance obligations for software-enabled devices. EUDAMED continues to mature. And teams are being asked to absorb all of this while still meeting existing registration and renewal deadlines.

The practical implication is clear: RA functions that rely on manual tracking, disconnected spreadsheets, and tribal knowledge are being outrun by the pace of change. Across the industry, teams are moving from talking about AI to actively experimenting with it, using it to handle the volume and complexity that manual processes simply cannot absorb. The teams emerging as strategic forces are the ones who have connected, real-time regulatory infrastructure and are putting AI to work within it.

AI Is No Longer Optional Thinking

The conversation at Euro Convergence made one thing clear: AI has moved from future-state to present-tense. Regulatory professionals were encouraged to embrace AI while maintainingaccountability for the outcome and challenging the algorithms.

" Our role is to make sure that the AI does the right interpretations appropriate to our products, to our business."

— João Martins, Director of Regulatory Affairs at Abbott at RAPS Euro Convergence 2026 Opening Plenary

That framing resonates deeply with how we have built AI into Rimsys. The goal was never to replace regulatory judgment; it is to amplify it. Rimsys AI is domain-specific, built on the regulatory data structures and logic that reflect real-world requirements, country-specific nuances, and product context. It proposes, analyzes, and alerts. Your team reviews, approves, and decides.

For teams that are ready to accelerate, Rimsys AI accelerates regulatory intelligence monitoring and submission authoring, removing the repetitive, detail-heavy work so skilled professionals can focus on strategy, market expansion, and the higher-order decisions that increasingly complex regulations demand.

"As future regulators, we will need to be scientifically strong, comfortable with complexity, open to innovation, and also be able to work in increasingly complex environments."

— Rui Santos Ivo, President of Portugal's National Authority of Medicines and Health Products (INFARMED) and chair of the EMA management board, RAPS Euro Convergence 2026 Opening Plenary

MDR 2.0: Reform With Guardrails

A panel of experts representing regulators, industry, and notified bodies gave their views on the proposed revision of the EU Medical Device Regulation at the conference. While their sentiments were largely supportive, notified body representatives urged the European Commission to maintain proactive surveillance of devices to protect patients.

The discussion acknowledged the complexity of balancing reform with patient safety. Simplification and innovation go hand in hand, though if it is overly complicated or overly simplified, it becomes difficult to innovate. Structured dialogues in MDR/IVDR will provide transparency and predictability for manufacturers, especially in early product development.

Regulatory Workflows Cannot Be an Afterthought

A recurring observation across sessions was that MDR 2.0, EUDAMED, and the EU AI Act are only as effective as the operational workflows behind them. Structured dialogues, risk-proportionate pathways, and submissions all require teams to move quickly with accurate, up-to-date product data. That is simply not possible when that data lives across email threads, spreadsheets, and disconnected systems.

The workflows that came up most in Lisbon (change control, renewals, new product introductions, and registration management) are exactly the areas where manual processes create the most risk. A missed renewal. A design change that triggers 40 country-level impact assessments with no system to coordinate them. A registration record that no one has updated since the last audit.

Rimsys keeps these workflows connected and proactive. Renewal expiration reminders fire before deadlines become a risk. Change control impact surveys are configurable to your SOPs, so teams can assign tasks and coordinate work across regions without relying on someone to manually track progress. New product introductions move faster because previous submission content can be reused across markets. Target market data, registration history, and approval status are already centralized, so teams are building on existing work rather than starting from scratcheach time.

The result is regulatory operations that reduce time to market by weeks to months, not add to it. Access information in seconds rather than hours. Regulatory release authorization in minutes rather than weeks. More than 90% reduction in regional regulatory reporting time. These are not projections. They are outcomes reported by Rimsys customers operating in exactly the kind of complex, multi-market environments that dominated the conversation in Lisbon.

The Regulatory Professional Is Evolving

Perhaps the most striking thread across sessions was the evolution of the RA function itself. Regulatory work was once seen mainly in terms of compliance procedures and submissions. Today, the profession is much broader than that.

This evolution is exactly the transition Rimsys is designed to support. When regulatory data is centralized, connected, and visible in real time, RA teams stop spending their days chasing down registration status and start contributing to commercial strategy: market expansion decisions, launch sequencing, change control planning, and executive-level risk communication.

The heart of regulatory operations is not a filing cabinet. It is a living, connected system that elevates the entire function.

What It All Points To

RAPS Euro Convergence 2026 made one thing clear: the organizations that will thrive are those who have invested in regulatory infrastructure that can absorb change without breaking. Rimsys is the platform built for exactly this moment: enterprise-grade, intuitive enough for global teams to actually use, and trusted by 6 of the top 12 global MedTech manufacturers worldwide.

Book a conversation with our team

I agree to the privacy policy including to Rimsys using my contact details to contact me for marketing purposes.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Hand holding smartphone showing email app with 12 unread messages notification.