Understanding Self-Inspection in PIC/S GMP
Chapter 9 of the PIC/S GMP guideline addresses Self-Inspection, which Japanese regulations (GMP Ministerial Ordinance, GVP Ministerial Ordinance, etc.) translate as “jiko-tenken” (self-inspection). However, this translation may not fully capture the true meaning and scope of the requirement.
In contrast to Authority Inspection conducted by regulatory agencies, Self-Inspection represents the practice of a company systematically inspecting itself. Rather than simply “self-checking,” it more accurately reflects “self-inspection” or “internal audit” in the truest sense. Within the pharmaceutical quality system, Self-Inspection encompasses various activities including internal audits, external audits, periodic reviews, and management reviews, all forming an integrated approach to continuous quality assurance.
The Critical Role of Self-Inspection
Regulatory inspections typically occur only once every few years and last only a few days. If companies merely address the specific issues identified during these inspections, they cannot adequately ensure patient safety or product quality. The fundamental principle is that organizations must continuously inspect, identify issues, and implement improvements on their own initiative, independent of regulatory oversight.
The importance of Self-Inspection as a cornerstone of pharmaceutical quality systems cannot be overstated. It serves as the primary mechanism through which companies demonstrate their commitment to continuous improvement and proactive quality management.
Auditor Competence: A Critical Success Factor
Through my consulting work with pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, healthcare institutions, and active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) facilities worldwide, I have observed a concerning trend: the competence of many auditors falls significantly short of requirements. This deficiency represents one of the most critical challenges facing pharmaceutical quality systems today.
Common Deficiencies in Auditor Practice
Consider the following problematic scenarios that I have encountered:
In one case, an auditor with no manufacturing experience was assigned to audit manufacturing operations and proved completely unable to identify process-related risks. Upon reviewing the audit report, I found that observations were limited exclusively to documentation of training records. Such superficial auditing cannot lead to meaningful improvements in manufacturing process quality or risk reduction.
Even more concerning are cases where auditors focus predominantly on identifying transcription errors and clerical mistakes. This approach fundamentally misses the point. Correcting how documents are written does not constitute quality assurance. These types of findings have no bearing on ensuring patient safety or health, and regulatory authorities cannot have confidence in organizations that produce such shallow audit findings.
Essential Auditor Qualifications
Effective auditors must possess deep expertise in the specific processes they are auditing. A manufacturing auditor must have practical manufacturing experience, while a quality testing auditor must have hands-on experience in analytical testing and quality control operations. Beyond operational expertise, auditors must maintain current knowledge of the latest regulatory requirements and their proper interpretation.
The role demands exceptional analytical capabilities: auditors must identify issues with insight, discover root causes, eliminate them to prevent recurrence, and proactively identify risks embedded within quality systems and organizational structures even when no problems have yet manifested. These multifaceted requirements demand highly skilled professionals.
Ideal Auditor Profile and Background
While Japanese companies increasingly employ professionals with diverse career backgrounds through mid-career hiring, employees who have spent their entire careers within a single organization often face particular challenges as auditors. The limitation stems from knowing only one way of doing things—their own company’s approach—leading them to accept their organization’s processes as the standard without question.
The Value of Comparative Perspective
Regulatory inspectors and consultants like myself bring a distinct advantage: extensive exposure to numerous companies’ processes and systems. This broad experience enables relatively straightforward identification of issues and risks through benchmarking against other organizations. When a company’s practices fall short compared to industry best practices, that gap itself represents a risk. Similarly, professionals who have worked at multiple companies can compare current practices against their previous experiences.
Effective auditing requires this comparative framework combined with strong analytical insight—capabilities that career-long employees of a single organization may find difficult to develop. Additionally, auditors must possess the ability to clearly identify issues and drive improvement initiatives.
Independence and Objectivity
Successful auditors must demonstrate courage in raising concerns without fear of criticism and maintain equal treatment of all personnel regardless of hierarchical position. The fundamental principles of audit independence and impartiality must be maintained at all times.
Self-Inspection Requirements in Japanese GMP Ministerial Ordinance
Article 18 of the Japanese GMP Ministerial Ordinance governs self-inspection requirements. The regulation mandates specific practices to ensure systematic quality oversight:
Manufacturers must designate qualified individuals to perform the following activities in accordance with standard operating procedures (SOPs) and other documentation:
Core Requirements:
- Conduct periodic self-inspections of manufacturing and quality-related operations
- Document self-inspection results and report them in writing to the organization responsible for quality assurance and to the manufacturing supervisor
- Create and maintain records of all self-inspection activities
The second paragraph of Article 18 requires that when self-inspection results indicate necessary improvements in manufacturing and quality-related operations, manufacturers must implement appropriate corrective measures and create and maintain records of these actions.
Detailed Guidance from Implementation Guidelines
The official implementation guidelines (chikujo kaisetsu) provide comprehensive clarification of these requirements:
Organizational Structure and Responsibilities:
Companies must establish a designated self-inspection supervisor who thoroughly understands the content of the operations subject to inspection. This supervisor must maintain an objective position, not directly engaged in the operations being inspected. When outsourcing any portion of self-inspection activities to external contractors, appropriate oversight and management must be implemented in accordance with regulatory requirements.
Documentation must include preparation of comprehensive self-inspection reports (or self-inspection records), formal written reporting of results to both the quality assurance department and manufacturing supervisor, and appropriate follow-up actions by the manufacturing supervisor based on report findings.
Resource Allocation:
Organizations must ensure appropriate assignment of qualified personnel, adequate staffing levels, proper management system structure, allocation of necessary resources, and comprehensive training programs for all personnel involved in self-inspection activities.
Comprehensive Scope of Self-Inspection
According to the GMP Ministerial Ordinance, self-inspection must systematically cover all aspects of pharmaceutical manufacturing and quality management. The scope includes but is not limited to:
| Category | Specific Areas |
|---|---|
| Management Operations | Manufacturing supervisor duties; Creation and maintenance of pharmaceutical product master files and SOPs; Cross-contamination prevention measures; Maintenance and inspection of facilities and equipment |
| Core Operations | Manufacturing management; Testing and inspection; Quality assurance operations; Stability monitoring; Product quality reviews |
| System Management | Supplier management for raw materials; Management of contract operations; Control of product release from manufacturing sites; Validation activities |
| Change and Deviation | Change control; Deviation management; Quality information and defect handling; Recall and recovery procedures |
| Support Systems | Training and education programs; Document and record management; Document and record retention; Data integrity |
This comprehensive scope reflects the holistic nature of pharmaceutical quality management and the need for systematic oversight of all operations that impact product quality.
Alignment with International Standards
The self-inspection requirements align closely with international standards for auditing management systems, particularly ISO 19011:2018 “Guidelines for auditing management systems.” This standard, currently under revision with ISO 19011:2025 expected for publication, provides comprehensive guidance on:
Audit Principles: The standard emphasizes core principles including integrity, fair presentation, due professional care, confidentiality, independence, and evidence-based approaches. The upcoming 2025 revision strengthens these principles with enhanced emphasis on objectivity and risk-based thinking.
Audit Program Management: Organizations should establish systematic audit programs with clearly defined objectives, scope, and criteria. The risk-based approach ensures that audit resources focus on areas of highest risk, complexity, or importance to product quality and patient safety.
Auditor Competence: ISO 19011 provides detailed guidance on evaluating and maintaining auditor competence, including requirements for technical knowledge, audit skills, and continuing professional development. The 2025 revision expands these requirements, emphasizing the importance of ongoing training and demonstrated competence.
Remote and Virtual Audits: Recognizing the evolution of audit practices, the 2025 revision acknowledges remote audits as legitimate audit methods, providing guidance on technology selection, feasibility determination, and risk mitigation for virtual audit activities.
Best Practices for Effective Self-Inspection Programs
Based on regulatory requirements, international standards, and industry best practices, organizations should consider the following approaches to strengthen their self-inspection programs:
Strategic Planning: Develop risk-based audit schedules that prioritize high-risk areas while ensuring comprehensive coverage of all GMP requirements over defined time periods. While annual completion of all inspection items represents ideal practice, regulatory guidance and international standards such as the APIC recommendations acknowledge that comprehensive inspection of all elements may be conducted over a two-year cycle, provided the approach is systematic and documented.
Auditor Development: Invest in developing internal audit capabilities through formal training, mentoring programs, and opportunities for auditors to observe different processes and facilities. Consider rotation programs that allow auditors to gain broader perspective while maintaining the independence requirement.
Depth Over Compliance: Move beyond checkbox compliance to develop auditors who can identify systemic issues, evaluate the effectiveness of quality systems, and provide value-added recommendations. Encourage critical thinking and root cause analysis rather than focusing on superficial documentation review.
Follow-Up and CAPA: Establish robust systems for tracking audit findings, verifying effectiveness of corrective and preventive actions (CAPA), and measuring improvement trends over time. The effectiveness of self-inspection is ultimately measured by its impact on continuous improvement.
Integration with Quality Systems: Ensure self-inspection findings feed into other quality system activities including management review, product quality review, and risk management processes. Self-inspection should function as an integral component of the pharmaceutical quality system rather than an isolated compliance activity.
Addressing Recent Industry Challenges
Recent events in the pharmaceutical industry have highlighted critical weaknesses in self-inspection practices. Following quality issues at several Japanese generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, regulatory authorities mandated comprehensive self-inspection across the industry. The results revealed significant gaps between approved specifications and actual manufacturing practices at numerous facilities.
These incidents underscore several important lessons. First, self-inspection must possess sufficient rigor and independence to identify serious compliance issues before they are discovered by regulatory authorities. Second, organizational culture must support honest reporting and appropriate escalation of findings, even when remediation proves difficult or costly. Third, self-inspection cannot be treated as a mere formality—it must represent genuine critical evaluation of operations and systems.
The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare has emphasized the need for unannounced audits as part of self-inspection programs, reflecting guidance from international standards such as APIC recommendations for API manufacturing. This practice helps ensure that routine operations reflect the same quality standards demonstrated during scheduled inspections.
Conclusion
Self-inspection represents far more than a regulatory requirement—it serves as a fundamental pillar of pharmaceutical quality assurance and patient safety. Organizations that view self-inspection as merely checking boxes on audit checklists miss its true value and purpose. Effective self-inspection requires highly competent auditors with deep process knowledge, comparative perspective, analytical capability, and the independence to identify issues and drive improvements.
As regulatory requirements continue to evolve and align globally through initiatives like PIC/S, and as industry faces increasing scrutiny following quality failures, the importance of robust self-inspection programs will only grow. Organizations that invest in developing world-class internal audit capabilities, that embrace the principles of ISO 19011 and similar international standards, and that foster a culture supporting honest, rigorous self-assessment will be best positioned to ensure product quality, maintain regulatory compliance, and ultimately protect patient safety.
The question is not whether regulatory authorities will inspect your facility—they inevitably will. The question is whether your organization has the internal capability and commitment to identify and address issues proactively through effective self-inspection, ensuring that when regulatory inspection does occur, it confirms what your own auditing has already verified: that quality systems function effectively and products consistently meet specifications. This proactive approach represents the true spirit and value of self-inspection in pharmaceutical manufacturing.
Comment