QPPV.COM KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENT

GVP Module VI Inspection Findings: Common ICSR Case-Processing Deficiencies

Test your understanding of the concepts covered by GVP Module VI Inspection Findings: Common ICSR Case-Processing Deficiencies.

Question 1 of 10Pass mark: 80%

Question 1 of 10 Why is reconstructing an ICSR from the original source through submission and follow-up particularly valuable during an inspection?

It eliminates the need to review the organisation's procedures It shows whether the complete lifecycle is coherent, traceable and supported by records It confirms that the original reporter was medically qualified It demonstrates that all cases were handled using identical workflows

Question 2 of 10 Why may a high overall on-time submission rate provide false assurance?

Aggregate metrics are never useful in pharmacovigilance The metric may conceal recurring failures in important subpopulations such as serious or fatal cases On-time submissions are unrelated to regulatory compliance A high rate proves that all individual cases were clinically assessed correctly

Question 3 of 10 A source states only that the patient died after treatment with a medicinal product. Which processing approach best reflects the article's principles?

Code the medicinal product as the cause of death Treat death as the outcome while preserving uncertainty about causation and seeking useful information where appropriate Reject the report because no cause of death is provided Assume that the most recent adverse event caused the death

Question 4 of 10 Why is the rule 'hospitalisation always means serious' an inadequate control?

Hospitalisation is never relevant to seriousness assessment Seriousness must be supported by the applicable criteria and the facts of the case, rather than by an unexamined shortcut Only the reporter may determine whether a case is serious Seriousness can be assigned only after regulatory authority feedback

Question 5 of 10 What is the central distinction an inspector is likely to evaluate when reviewing an organisation's ICSR process?

Whether the written procedures contain all possible processing scenarios Whether the documented process is effectively implemented and produces reliable evidence Whether every case is processed by the QPPV personally Whether the safety database contains no data-entry errors at all

Question 6 of 10 What should effectiveness verification of a CAPA demonstrate?

That the CAPA action was documented as completed That the underlying failure mechanism changed and recurrence risk was reduced based on objective evidence That the original inspection finding was removed from the tracker That the responsible employee completed training

Question 7 of 10 Following a safety-database migration, which evidence is most relevant to inspection readiness?

A statement that users were familiar with the old system Validation or qualification, migration reconciliation, data-integrity checks, change control and post-implementation monitoring The number of new user accounts created A reduction in the length of case narratives

Question 8 of 10 Which recordkeeping practice best supports reliable establishment of the relevant date of awareness?

Using the vendor's case-processing date as the default date for all reports Retaining controlled source and intake records with the original receipt information Replacing the original timestamp with the date the case was created Using the affiliate transfer date whenever the report originated outside the EU

Question 9 of 10 Which example best represents purposeful follow-up rather than mechanical follow-up?

Sending the same questionnaire to every reporter regardless of the case Requesting information targeted to the unresolved clinical issue that could change assessment or management Sending repeated requests for data already documented in the case Continuing requests indefinitely without documenting the reason

Question 10 of 10 Which situation most directly indicates a weakness in the organisation's intake controls?

A case narrative contains a clinically relevant uncertainty Reports received through a shared mailbox are not systematically monitored or transferred to PV A submitted case is later amended after meaningful follow-up A database contains historical cases from several affiliates

QPPV.com

GVP Module VI Inspection Findings: Common ICSR Case-Processing Deficiencies

Cookie Settings