← Tous les articles

Cet article n’est pas encore disponible dans votre langue ; nous affichons donc l’original en anglais.

eIFU is now open to every professional-use device

In June 2025 the EU widened electronic instructions for use from three device types to all professional use. What changed, and what quietly got easier.

eIFU Regulation · MDR

Most manufacturers we speak to are still working from the old rule. It is an easy mistake to make. The change arrived as an implementing regulation amending another implementing regulation, in June, with no transition period and no notified body announcement.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1234 was adopted on 25 June 2025. It entered into force twenty days after publication. It amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2226, which is the rule that decides when instructions for use may be electronic instead of paper.

The effect is easy to state. eIFU used to be open to three device types. It is now open to professional use as a category.

The old scope

Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2021/2226 originally listed three:

  • implantable and active implantable medical devices and their accessories
  • fixed installed medical devices and their accessories
  • medical devices and their accessories fitted with a built-in system visually displaying the instructions

There were two conditions on top of the device type (Article 3(2)). The devices had to be intended for exclusive use by professional users, and use by other persons had to be not reasonably foreseeable.

So a surgical instrument, a reprocessing accessory or a bench analyser without a screen got the same answer. No. Not for any safety reason. It was not on the list.

Software sat beside the list with its own route. Article 3(3) lets manufacturers of software covered by the MDR provide the instructions through the software itself. That paragraph is about the delivery mechanism, not about who uses the device. The June 2025 amendment left it untouched.

If you remember software as one of the listed categories, you are thinking of the rule before this one. Regulation (EU) No 207/2012 listed “stand-alone software covered by Directive 93/42/EEC” as a category in its own right, at Article 3(1)(e). Regulation (EU) 2021/2226 dropped that term and moved software to its own paragraph. Small piece of drafting history, still a regular source of confusion in eligibility reviews.

The new scope

The replacement Article 3(1) drops the list entirely. Manufacturers may now provide instructions in electronic form for devices referred to in Article 1(4) of the MDR that are intended for use by professional users.

That cross-reference does a lot of work. Article 1(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/745 defines “devices” as medical devices, accessories for medical devices, and the products listed in Annex XVI. So accessories are in. Annex XVI products, which have no intended medical purpose, are in where they are for professional use (recital 4).

Recital 3 adds one more group that matters commercially. The extended scope covers devices under the transitional provisions of Article 120 of the MDR. Legacy devices still running on a certificate under the old directives are not shut out.

For most manufacturers with a professional-use portfolio, the eligibility question has changed. It used to be “is my device type on the list”. It is now “is this device used only by professionals”.

The lay-person limit changed shape

Paper has not gone away for lay users. The replacement Article 3(2) reads: where it is reasonably foreseeable that a device intended for use by professional users is also used by lay persons, manufacturers shall provide the instructions for use intended for lay persons in paper form.

Compare that with what it replaced, because the shape is different.

The old Article 3(2) worked as a gate on the device. Exclusive professional use was required, and other use had to be not reasonably foreseeable. Fail either limb and the device was out of eIFU altogether.

The new paragraph works on the instructions instead. Foreseeable lay use means the instructions intended for lay persons go on paper. On the face of the text it does not shut the device out.

Take an infusion pump. It is normally nurse-operated, but it sometimes goes home with a patient. Under the old rule, that foreseeable home use disqualified the pump. Every instruction for that device went on paper, including the clinical ones your hospital users read. Under the new wording the pump stays eligible. What you owe on paper is the instructions written for the patient. The instructions written for the nurse can be electronic.

One practical limit is worth naming. This only helps where separate instructions for the two audiences actually exist. If a single combined IFU serves nurses and patients alike, there is nothing to separate, and you are realistically printing the whole document. The change rewards manufacturers who write for the two audiences separately.

A related deletion points the same way. The old Article 6(4) said that for implantables and their accessories, any part of the instructions intended for the patient could not be provided electronically. Regulation (EU) 2025/1234 deletes that paragraph. The patient-facing carve-out is now handled by the general lay-person rule in Article 3(2).

This is a meaningful shift for mixed-use portfolios. It is also recent, so we would want it recorded in a risk assessment and raised with your notified body, rather than assumed in a meeting.

What did not change: the conditions

The scope moved. The obligations did not. They sit in Articles 4 to 7 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2226, and they are the part that takes real work.

A documented risk assessment (Article 4). It has to demonstrate that electronic instructions maintain or improve the level of safety compared with paper (Article 5(1)).

Paper on request (Article 5(3)). You need a system that delivers paper instructions at no additional cost to the user. The deadline is the period set in your risk assessment, and at the latest 7 calendar days from the request. If the user asks at the time of order, it goes out with the device. eIFU does not remove paper. It turns a print run into a service.

Retention (Article 5(9) and (10)). Take devices with a defined expiry date, implantables aside. The instructions stay available for 10 years after the last device was placed on the market. They also stay available for at least 2 years after the expiry date of the last device produced. For implantables and for devices with no defined expiry date, it is 15 years after the last device was placed on the market.

Language (Article 5(11)). The instructions have to be on your website in an official EU language determined by the Member State where the device is made available.

Information on the label, and how to reach the instructions (Article 6). The label states that the instructions are supplied electronically instead of on paper. Separately, you provide the access information: what is needed to view the instructions, the Basic UDI-DI and/or the UDI-DI, manufacturer contact details, and where, how and within what time a paper copy can be requested.

Worth being precise about that identifier, because it comes up often. Article 6(3)(b) names the Basic UDI-DI and/or the UDI-DI. A catalogue or REF number does not satisfy it. The same point does allow “any additional information allowing the identification of the device, including its name and if applicable the model”, which is where a REF belongs. So a REF alongside the UDI identifier, not instead of it. The access information itself goes on the unit or sales packaging, or in a paper document supplied with each device where that is not practicable (Article 6(2)).

A website that behaves (Article 7(2)). A commonly used format that opens with freely available software. Protection against unauthorised access and tampering. Server downtime and display errors reduced as far as possible. GDPR compliance. And an internet address that is stable and directly accessible for the whole retention period.

Regulation (EU) 2025/1234 adds one obligation. The manufacturer has to give that internet address to the UDI database, at the latest from the date device registration applies (new Article 7(3)). Your eIFU address is registered regulatory data now, not a marketing URL you can quietly change.

Two things the amendment quietly made easier

Not everything got heavier in June 2025.

The old Article 5(13) required every historical electronic version to be available on the website. The replacement is softer. During the retention periods, all issued versions and their publication dates must be available on the website, or, for obsolete versions, made available on request.

The old Article 5(12) required systems ensuring that users who had downloaded instructions could be informed about updates and corrective actions. That point is deleted. Article 5(8) survives, so you still need a system that flags when instructions have been revised and informs each user when the revision was made for safety reasons.

Article 8 also went. It required a notified body to review compliance with Articles 4 to 7 during conformity assessment. The Commission removed it as redundant, since that review already forms part of conformity assessment under the MDR (recital 7). The scrutiny has not gone anywhere. The duplicate sentence has.

One caveat before you reuse any of this. Regulation (EU) 2021/2226 applies under the MDR. In vitro diagnostics follow a different route, and the conditions are not identical. We will take that apart in a later post.

Qualifying is not the same as being obliged

Nothing here requires you to move to eIFU. Regulation (EU) 2025/1234 makes electronic instructions available for professional-use devices. It does not make them mandatory, and the paper-on-request duty is untouched.

That distinction matters more than it sounds. We regularly meet regulatory teams who read a headline about the change and concluded a project had landed on their desk. It has not. What they have gained is permission, not an obligation. Ask the same eligibility question about the same device before July 2025 and the answer would have been no.

What to do with this

Three things are worth an hour of someone’s time this month.

  • Re-run the eligibility question across the portfolio, gate by gate. Our eIFU eligibility decision tree sets out the six questions in the order they are worth answering, with the article behind each one. If you checked before July 2025 and the answer was no, that answer may be out of date. Include accessories, Annex XVI products and legacy devices under Article 120.
  • Separate the devices that are professional use only from the ones a lay person might foreseeably use. The second group is not excluded any more, but it needs a documented position.
  • Read Article 7(2) before you evaluate any solution, including ours. A stable address that stays reachable for 15 years is the requirement that quietly rules out a PDF on a marketing site.

Sources

Primary sources. Every claim in this post is traceable to one of these.

Show 4 sources · 3 references
  • Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1234 of 25 June 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2226 as regards the medical devices for which the instructions for use may be provided in electronic form, OJ L, 26.6.2025: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/1234/oj
    • Recital 3: extension to devices intended for professional users, including devices under the transitional provisions of Article 120 of Regulation (EU) 2017/745. Recital 4: Annex XVI products for professional use. Recital 7: removal of requirements that are redundant with conformity assessment.
    • Article 1: replacement of Article 3(1) and 3(2); deletion of Article 5, point (12); replacement of Article 5, point (13); deletion of Article 6(4); deletion of Article 7(2), point (f); new Article 7(3) on the UDI database; deletion of Article 8.
  • Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2226 of 14 December 2021 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2017/745 as regards electronic instructions for use of medical devices, OJ L 448, 15.12.2021: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2021/2226/oj
    • Article 3(1), (2) and (3): original scope, conditions, and software. Article 4: risk assessment. Article 5: conditions, including point (1) safety, point (3) paper on request, points (9) and (10) retention, point (11) language, point (13) versions. Article 6: label and access information. Article 7: website requirements.
  • Commission Regulation (EU) No 207/2012 of 9 March 2012 on electronic instructions for use of medical devices, Article 3(1)(e): “stand-alone software covered by Directive 93/42/EEC”: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/207/oj
  • Regulation (EU) 2017/745 on medical devices, Article 1(4): medical devices, accessories and Annex XVI products are together referred to as “devices”: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/745/oj

About this post

Ydntfy runs electronic instructions for use for medical device and IVD manufacturers, built to the conditions in Articles 4 to 7 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2226 for devices under the MDR and to Annex I, Section 20.1(f) of the IVDR for in vitro diagnostics. You can see how it works at ydntfy.com.

Originally published at https://ydntfy.com/en/blog/eifu-open-to-every-professional-use-device/ on 13 August 2026. You are welcome to quote or reuse this, with a link back.