Skip to content 
The Missing Metric on Your Dashboard: Time to Contain. Most medical device executives can tell you exactly when a Nonconformance Report (NCR) was opened. Very few can prove, with data, when the risk actually stopped on the shop floor.
Under the FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR), this gap has become a compliance liability.
Traditional quality dashboards track administrative speed, such as NCR aging or days to closure. What they often miss is the most critical operational variable: the physical exposure window. This is the period between detecting a nonconformance and verifying that the product has been physically contained.
If an inspector pointed to a pallet today, could you demonstrate exactly when containment occurred? Or would the answer depend on explanation rather than evidence?
In this post, we examine why QMSR time to contain is emerging as a true indicator of process control, and why many QMS KPI dashboards underestimate execution risk.
Why QMSR Time to Contain KPI Matters More Than NCR Timing
Most QMS dashboards rely on a familiar set of administrative QMS KPIs, including time to open a Nonconformance Report, time to disposition, and time to closure.
These metrics measure how efficiently quality activities are processed. They do not measure whether product risk has been controlled.
A Nonconformance Report is a record of intent, not a mechanism of constraint. In many facilities, an NCR can be opened in the system while affected material remains physically accessible, such as:
- positioned on an active production line
- moving on an unmonitored transit cart
- staged in undefined overflow areas accessible to operators
From a regulatory perspective, this creates a clear gap between documentation and execution. Documentation speed does not equal containment speed.
If the system shows a status of “Hold,” but the product can still move, be processed, or be accessed, control has not been established. Only administrative compliance has.
Under QMSR, which aligns with ISO 13485 requirements for control of nonconforming product, inspection scrutiny shifts from how quickly a record was created to how quickly physical intervention occurred. Auditors focus on when material was isolated, access was restricted, and unintended use was prevented.
When QMSR time to contain is not measured, administrative metrics such as time-to-open and time-to-close indicate process activity but provide no evidence that risk was reduced.
A Common Exposure Scenario FDA Recognizes
A nonconformance is identified during inspection. Quality opens a Nonconformance Report and applies a hold status in the system.
Physically, the product may still:
- remain staged near production
- wait for space in a quarantine area
- be repositioned to relieve congestion
Containment is not immediate. Material continues to exist outside controlled locations until space, personnel, or process allows isolation.
From the organization’s view, response appears prompt. From the FDA’s view, control has not been established until physical containment is complete.
Also Read: Temporary Locations Under FDA’s New QMSR Compliance: A Big Risk
Why FDA Prioritizes the Exposure Window
During an inspection, FDA does not focus on whether a nonconformance was identified. The focus is how long the product remained capable of unintended use after that moment.
The key audit question is simple: between detection and physical containment, what risk remained?
Inspectors evaluate this by looking at three execution factors:
- Duration of exposure: How long product status or location was not actively governed
- Ability to move or mix: Whether the product could still advance, be accessed, or be staged incorrectly
- Method of intervention: Whether containment depended on human action or was enforced by the system
This is where QMSR time to contain becomes a meaningful QMS KPI. It reflects how quickly execution-level controls stop movement and restrict access once a deviation is known.
Long or unverifiable exposure windows indicate control depends on vigilance. Short, provable containment windows demonstrate that the quality system intervenes automatically.
QMSR does not penalize the presence of nonconformances. It penalizes the inability to prove that exposure was contained quickly and consistently.
The Hidden Assumption Behind QMSR Time to Contain
Many manufacturers equate containment with administrative actions:
- Quality is notified
- A hold is approved in the system
- Labels are applied
Under QMSR, these steps signal intent. They do not establish control.
Containment is achieved only when execution changes:
- Product movement is physically restricted
- Access is actively prevented
- Placement is constrained to approved locations
- Recorded status matches verified location
If the quality system cannot confirm when these conditions were enforced, containment has not been demonstrated. It has only been assumed.
Under QMSR, assumed containment is treated as a gap in execution, not a procedural success.
Why Time-to-Contain KPI Is an Executive Metric, Not a Quality Metric
Time-to-Contain directly reflects risks that sit at the executive level, not just within Quality.
It determines:
- Recall exposure: Longer containment delays expand the volume and impact of affected product
- Inspection escalation: Inability to prove containment timing increases audit depth and scrutiny
- Liability duration: The longer product remains uncontrolled, the longer the organization carries risk
Executives already manage exposure windows in other domains where timing defines severity:
- cybersecurity breaches
- safety incidents
- financial control failures
In each case, the question is not whether an issue occurred, but how quickly it was contained.
QMSR applies the same logic to quality execution. Time-to-Contain becomes a measure of how fast the organization can stop risk propagation once a deviation is known.
That is why QMSR Time-to-Contain belongs on the executive dashboard. It signals how resilient the operation is when control is challenged, not just how efficiently paperwork moves.
Why Manual Verification Fails Under QMSR
Many manufacturers still rely on manual confirmation to prove containment:
- verbal handoffs
- email acknowledgments
- checklist completion
- after-the-fact signoff
These methods break down in real production environments with multiple shifts, high product mix, limited space, and constant throughput pressure.
Under QMSR, containment that depends on self-reporting is not considered verifiable. If control relies on someone remembering to act or report, it cannot be proven consistently during inspection.
As a result, manufacturers are shifting toward objective indicators of containment. Physical location intelligence becomes the primary signal because it confirms when movement stopped, access was restricted, and product was placed in a controlled state.
When containment is demonstrated through observable execution, not manual confirmation, QMSR time to contain becomes measurable and defensible.
Read More: Medical Non-conforming Products by FDA
How Measuring QMSR Time to Contain Changes Execution
When organizations begin measuring QMSR time to contain, three execution-level shifts occur almost immediately:
- Exposure becomes measurable
Teams see the actual duration product remains physically uncontrolled after detection, rather than relying on system status or verbal confirmation. - Root causes move to execution
Delays are traced to staging ambiguity, space constraints, and handoff failures instead of documentation or NCR processing time. - Operational priorities realign
Physical containment is treated as a first-response action, not a follow-up task after administrative steps are completed.
How Leading Manufacturers Verify Containment in Practice
QMSR does not mandate specific technologies. It requires verifiable control during execution.
In practice, leading manufacturers close the containment gap by anchoring control to physical reality, not confirmation workflows. They use location intelligence, often enabled by RTLS, to establish objective proof of when containment actually occurred.
Common execution patterns include:
- Verifying containment by location: Product is considered contained only when it enters an approved, status-aligned zone such as quarantine or MRB.
- Timestamping physical isolation: The moment material crosses into a controlled area is automatically recorded, creating an auditable containment event.
- Detecting unauthorized movement: Any movement outside allowed locations or dwell limits is surfaced immediately, not discovered later.
- Removing reliance on verbal confirmation: Containment does not depend on shift handoffs, emails, or walkarounds to be considered valid.
When location rules, approved zones, and dwell limits are modeled operationally, mean time to contain becomes measurable and defensible rather than inferred.
This approach does not replace QMS, MES, or eDHR systems.
It completes them by ensuring that documented status is continuously enforced on the shop floor.
Also Read: Medical Device QMSR Compliance: Why FDA Now Expects Proof of Physical Control
Executive Signals That Validate Containment Maturity
Once Time-to-Contain is measured, leading organizations track a small set of supporting indicators to confirm that containment is reliable, not accidental.
- Same-shift containment rate
Percentage of nonconformances physically contained before the next shift change, reducing handoff risk. - Containment verification latency
Gap between when containment occurs and when it is system-verified, exposing reliance on manual confirmation. - Post-hold movement incidents
Frequency of unauthorized movement after a hold is declared, revealing breakdowns in enforcement.
These indicators do not replace Time-to-Contain.
They validate whether containment is consistently enforced under real operating conditions, which is exactly what FDA inspectors look for during execution walkthroughs.
Closing the Gap Between Records and Reality
As the February 2, 2026 QMSR mandate takes effect, the FDA’s definition of control is changing. Compliance is no longer assessed by how well actions are recorded after the fact, but by whether control can be proven during execution.
For Quality and Operations leaders, this marks a clear shift from managing documentation to managing physical risk.
In this environment, a “Hold” status in the QMS or ERP is no longer sufficient. If the system cannot verify that the product physically stopped moving, containment remains theoretical. Inspection confidence now depends on whether intent is enforced in real time on the shop floor.
Closing this gap requires a new execution layer: Location Intelligence.
Adding an RTLS layer does not replace your QMS. It completes it by providing objective evidence that containment occurred when and where it was required.
LocaXion enables manufacturers to measure and prove Time-to-Contain, ensuring that when your system declares risk is controlled, physical reality aligns with the record.
Assess Your QMSR Containment Strategy with LocaXion
FAQ: QMSR Time to Contain
1. What does QMSR time to contain actually measure?
QMSR time to contain KPI measures the elapsed time between detecting a nonconformance and verifying that the product has been physically isolated and restricted from unintended use. Unlike traditional QMS KPIs, it focuses on execution control rather than documentation timing.
2. How is the mean time to contain different from NCR closure time?
Mean time to contain reflects how quickly risk is stopped on the shop floor, while NCR closure time reflects how quickly records are completed. Under QMSR, FDA evaluates whether physical exposure was minimized, not how fast paperwork moved through the system.
3. Why is QMSR time to contain considered a critical QMS KPI?
QMSR time to contain is a critical QMS KPI because it directly reflects exposure duration. It shows how long the product could have moved, mixed, or been accessed after a deviation was known. FDA uses this window to assess whether process control is enforced or assumed.
4. Can manual confirmation satisfy QMSR time to contain requirements?
Manual confirmation can document intent, but it does not reliably prove containment. Under QMSR, containment that depends on verbal confirmation or after-the-fact signoff is difficult to defend. Objective evidence is required to establish mean time to contain during execution.
5. How do manufacturers objectively measure QMSR time to contain?
Manufacturers measure QMSR time to contain by linking product status to physical location. Using location intelligence enabled by RTLS, containment is verified when material enters approved zones and unauthorized movement is automatically detected. This makes mean time to contain measurable, auditable, and defensible.