Regulatory Alert: UK MedTech's Dual Mandate—Navigating the Clash Between New PMS Rules and UK GDPR

Effective June 16, 2025, the UK's new Medical Devices (Post-market Surveillance Requirements) Regulations 2024 will come into force, fundamentally altering the compliance landscape for every medical device manufacturer operating in the UK.

While this new mandate is a laudable step forward for patient safety, it creates a significant legal and operational thunderstorm at the perfect intersection of two powerful regulatory forces: the MHRA's demand for more data and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) mandate for less.

This is the new dual compliance challenge. The regulations require a massive increase in proactive Post-market Surveillance (PMS), demanding more real-world data to ensure device safety. However, this intensified data collection directly collides with the core principles of UK GDPR, particularly data minimization.

For MedTech manufacturers, the era of siloed compliance is over. Your Quality Assurance (QA) and Data Privacy departments can no longer operate in separate orbits. A unified strategy is not just recommended—it is an urgent necessity for survival.

Here is a breakdown of this critical compliance overlap and the new challenges your teams must address immediately.

1. The Data Challenge: Maximal Safety vs. Minimal Data

The new PMS regulations pivot from a reactive to a proactive model. It is no longer enough to simply log complaints. The MHRA now expects manufacturers to actively "hunt" for safety signals by collecting and analyzing vast amounts of real-world data.

  • The MHRA Mandate: The regulations explicitly broaden the scope of data collection. Teams must now gather data not only on their own device's performance but also on "similar devices" available on the market. This is intended to provide a comprehensive view of device safety and performance in the wild.
  • The UK GDPR Conflict: This presents an immediate conflict with UK GDPR's Article 5(1)(c), the principle of data minimization. How can a manufacturer justify collecting data on a competitor's device—data that may inevitably involve patient information—as "adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary"?
  • The Operational Hurdle: Your PMS plan must now be surgically precise. It needs to define a legal basis and a clear, defensible justification for why this expanded data set is necessary for your specific device's safety monitoring, all while ensuring it cannot be used for other purposes (like competitive analysis).

2. The Time Crunch: Reconciling Incident Reporting Clocks

The 2024 regulations introduce new, shorter timelines for reporting serious incidents to the MHRA. This "need for speed" in the name of patient safety creates a high-pressure environment where mistakes can easily be made.

The problem is that a serious device incident might also be a personal data breach.

  • Clock 1: MHRA Incident Reporting: You have a tight, specified window to investigate a potential safety issue and report a serious incident to the MHRA.
  • Clock 2: UK GDPR Breach Notification: You have just 72 hours from the moment of "awareness" of a personal data breach to report it to the ICO.

Consider a Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) or wearable that malfunctions. This is clearly a potential MHRA-reportable incident. But what if that malfunction also caused the device to transmit identifiable patient health data to an unsecured server? That is a personal data breach.

Your internal triage process must now be able to identify and assess both risks simultaneously. An investigation focused only on the device's technical failure may cause you to miss the 72-hour window for the data breach, resulting in a significant fine from the ICO, even as you are trying to comply with the MHRA.

3. The Digital Device Dilemma: SaMD and Wearables as High-Risk Vectors

The new PMS rules are particularly challenging for manufacturers of digital health technologies, SaMD, and wearables. These devices are, by their very nature, data-gathering engines.

  • Sensitive Data at Scale: These devices often collect continuous streams of Special Category Data (e.g., heart rhythms, sleep patterns, blood glucose levels) that is inextricably linked to an identifiable individual.
  • Intensified Monitoring: The MHRA's requirement for "intensified monitoring" means you must collect more of this highly sensitive data. This radically increases your risk profile under UK GDPR.
  • The Re-identification Risk: Even if data is pseudonymized, the sheer volume and specificity of real-world health data make re-identification a significant risk. Your PMS plan must now be supported by a robust Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) that explicitly addresses the heightened risks of collecting this data for surveillance purposes.

4. The Urgent Mandate: Update Your Documentation Now

This is not a theoretical exercise. The new regulations demand immediate, tangible changes to your core compliance documentation.

  • Technical Documentation: Your technical file must be updated to reflect these new, proactive PMS activities. It must describe how you are collecting this data, why it's necessary, and how you are protecting it.
  • Post-market Surveillance (PMS) Plans: Your PMS Plan is no longer just a quality document; it is a data privacy document. It must be explicitly cross-referenced with your DPIAs and UK GDPR compliance records. Your Data Protection Officer (DPO) must be involved in drafting and approving it.

Q&A: Key Questions for MedTech Manufacturers

Q: What does "proactive" post-market surveillance mean in practice?

A: It means shifting from a reactive "complaint logging" model to an active "signal hunting" one. You must now systematically collect and analyze real-world data to find potential issues before they become widespread problems. This includes reviewing scientific literature, analyzing performance data from your device, and critically, gathering data on "similar devices" to benchmark safety.

Q: How can we legally collect data on "similar devices" without violating UK GDPR?

A: This is a major challenge, and the key is to avoid personal data entirely. Your focus must be on publicly available, aggregated, or fully anonymized data. This includes information from:

  • Regulatory databases (like the MHRA's)
  • Published clinical literature and systematic reviews
  • Patient registries (where data is aggregated)

You must not attempt to collect identifiable patient data related to a competitor's device. Your PMS Plan and Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) must explicitly justify this collection based only on patient safety and define the non-personal data sources you will use.

Q: What's the practical difference between an MHRA "serious incident" and an ICO "data breach"?

A: A serious incident (for the MHRA) is about patient safety. It's a device malfunction or issue that led to, or might lead to, death or a serious deterioration in health.

A personal data breach (for the ICO) is about data security. It's a security failure that compromises the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of personal data (e.g., a hack, a data leak, or losing a laptop).

The critical overlap is when a device malfunction causes a data breach—for example, a SaMD app glitches and sends a patient's identifiable health records to the wrong recipient. This is both a serious incident and a data breach.

Q: If an incident is both a safety risk and a data breach, which timeline do I follow?

A: You must follow both, independently and simultaneously. This is crucial. Your internal investigation must run two parallel tracks:

  • ICO Data Breach: You have 72 hours from "awareness" of the data breach to report it to the ICO.
  • MHRA Serious Incident: You have a separate, very tight timeline (e.g., as little as 2 days for a serious risk to public health) to report the device incident to the MHRA.

Your internal procedures must be able to identify and manage both reporting streams at the same time.

Q: Our Quality and Privacy teams are in different silos. What is the single most important first step?

A: Schedule a joint review of your PMS Plan and your Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA). Get the Head of Quality, Head of Regulatory Affairs, and your Data Protection Officer (DPO) in the same room.

Use this meeting to map out every single data point you collect for post-market surveillance. For each data point, you must answer:

  • (Quality/RA) Why is this essential for patient safety under the new regs?
  • (DPO) Is this personal or special category data?
  • (DPO) What is our specific legal basis for processing it?
  • (DPO/Quality) How are we minimizing it, securing it, and how long will we keep it?

This joint exercise is the foundation of the unified compliance strategy you need.

Conclusion: A Unified Strategy is the Only Path Forward

As of June 16, 2025, the MHRA will regulate your device, and the ICO will regulate the data that flows through it. A failure in one is a failure in both.

Do not leave patient safety and data compliance to separate departments. The cost of failure—in regulatory fines, reputational damage, and, most importantly, patient trust—is too high.

The immediate next step is to get your Head of Quality, Head of Regulatory Affairs, and your DPO in the same room. You must build a unified compliance framework where robust data privacy practices are seen as an enabler of device safety, not a barrier. The new UK regulatory era demands nothing less. Need help: Click here

Or listen to our full length podcast https://rss.com/podcasts/the-formiti-privacy-pulse-your-weekly-global-data-compliance-briefing/2331755