Information about an accident may come through a complaint, helpline, marketplace, service or a message from a distributor. The first hours are easily lost searching for the correct model and documents. A ready process should help gather the facts, secure the sources and direct the case to the responsible persons without prejudging the outcome before analysis.

Separate receipt of the incident from its assessment

The person receiving the report does not have to decide whether the incident is an accident subject to a formal notification. They should, however, gather material that allows a competent person to make a decision. Marking the case as insignificant too early may cause loss of time and evidence.

It is worth creating a record even when the information is incomplete. Unknown fields should be marked as gaps, with an owner and a deadline for completion. They should not be filled with assumptions merely to close the form.

Incident data

The first set comprises:

Personal and health data require special protection. The scope should be limited to the necessary purpose, and access granted only to persons involved in handling the incident.

Product identification

The trade name is not sufficient. The model, variant, batch or serial number, date of purchase, seller and photographs of the markings must be established. If the customer does not have the packaging, the order confirmation, a photograph of the product or the listing identifier may be helpful.

The incident record should link to the product record, documentation, risk analysis, instructions and warnings applicable at the time of sale. This makes it possible to compare the description of the incident with identified hazards and to check whether similar cases concern the same batch.

Verification of market scope

Once the product has been established, the company should check the number of units, sales period, batches, markets and channels. Warehouse stock and deliveries in transit are also important. If a similar product came from several suppliers, their batches must be separated.

This is not yet a recall decision. It is the preparation of data needed to assess the scale and possible actions. The information should be updated as further findings are made, and earlier values should remain in the history.

Team and responsibilities

The process should identify the persons responsible for product safety, contact with authorities, communication with customers, technical analysis, data protection and the business decision. A small company may combine roles, but it is still worth recording who performed each action.

Handover of the case should be visible. Sending an email to a manager alone does not confirm that the task has been received. Statuses such as “new”, “under analysis”, “requires notification”, “corrective action” and “closed” help control the course if their meaning is unambiguous.

Preparing material for a formal notification

Before sending information, the current, correct channel and scope of required data should be checked. The working material should cover at least product identification, the parties in the chain, a description of the incident and its effects, known batches, markets, a preliminary assessment and actions already taken.

The version sent should be retained together with the date, confirmation number and attachments. Later additions create further entries and do not replace the original notification. This makes it possible to reconstruct what the company knew at a given moment.

Interim measures

Before the full analysis is completed, it may be necessary to secure stock, suspend the publication of a listing, inform the supplier, collect samples or increase monitoring of reports. The decision depends on the nature of the risk and should not result solely from an automatic threshold in the system.

Each action should have a scope, author, start time and completion criterion. If sales have been temporarily suspended, the basis for resuming or permanently ending them must later be documented.

Analysis of similar cases

A single report may be accidental, but it may also reveal a series. The system should make it possible to search incidents by model, batch, type of effect, hazard and supplier. Complaints described in other words, such as “cracked”, “fell off” or “cut”, should be taken into account.

Automatic grouping may suggest relationships, but a person should assess their significance. Not every similar word describes the same mechanism, and the absence of earlier reports does not prove the absence of risk.

Communication with the reporting person

Questions should be specific and proportionate. It is worth explaining why the company asks for the batch marking, photographs or retention of the product. Do not suggest answers to the customer or play down the effects. Promises regarding the outcome of a complaint, compensation or the safety of other units must be agreed with the relevant persons.

Closure and follow-up actions

A case may be closed only after the decision, basis, actions taken and further monitoring have been recorded. The results should feed back into the product record: risk analysis, instructions, warnings, supplier control or design. Otherwise the organisation will handle the incident but will not use the knowledge to reduce recurrence.

Most common mistakes

GPSR / PPWR can link the incident to the product, batch, documents, actions and decisions. The tool does not determine on its own whether a notification obligation has arisen. However, it provides material on which the responsible person can base a timely and documented decision.