AUTH/1884/8/06: Hospital Chief Pharmacist v Servier (Protelos) – representative conduct, call frequency and inducements | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1884/8/06
Parties	Hospital Chief Pharmacist (on behalf of an NHS trust) v Servier Laboratories Limited
Product	Protelos (strontium ranelate)
Issue type	Conduct of representative (call frequency; inducements; hospital access)
Complaint received	21 August 2006
Case completed	16 January 2007
Applicable Code year	2006
Breach clauses	9.1, 15.3, 15.4
No breach (not upheld)	Clause 2; and no breach ruled on various allegations under Clauses 15.2 and/or 15.4 due to conflicting accounts/insufficient evidence
Call-rate detail noted by Panel	11 contacts in 12 months (6 proactive; 3 at consultant’s request; 2 chance encounters); proactive rate exceeded supplementary information expectation
Sanctions	Undertaking received; additional sanctions not stated
Appeal	No appeal
Published	February 2007 Code of Practice Review

Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) — ABPI Final Signatory

🤖

Got a question about this case?

Ask one of our 13 specialist ABPI advisors — instant answers, 24/7.

Ask AskAnzal AI

🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough

🎬

Video walkthrough — coming for members

Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.

Subscribe — from £299/yr

📋

⌄

A hospital chief pharmacist complained (on behalf of an NHS trust) about a Servier representative promoting Protelos (strontium ranelate).
Allegations included: frequent requests to see a consultant; providing biscuits/snacks to secretarial staff to gain access; interrupting during an outpatient clinic; promoting to junior/ward staff; obtaining inpatient clinical details; repeatedly seeking appointments with the chief pharmacist; entering clinical areas uninvited to obtain pharmacist names; and going to a ward to find a medicines management pharmacist after an appointment was refused.
Servier investigated, suspended the representative, and stated disciplinary action (potential dismissal) was underway.
Evidence on several allegations was conflicting and the complainant did not provide further information requested by the Panel (including any hospital policy on rep access).

⚖️

⌄

Breach found: Clause 15.4 (call frequency/timing/duration/manner causing inconvenience; observing wishes/arrangements) – proactive call rate exceeded supplementary information limits.
Breach found: Clause 15.3 (inducements to gain an interview) – biscuits/snacks for secretarial staff to gain access.
Breach found: Clause 9.1 (high standards) – Panel concerned about representative’s activities; high standards not maintained.
No breach: Clause 2 (discredit) – Panel said circumstances did not warrant particular censure.
No breach ruled on several other allegations (eg outpatient clinic interruption/patient details; promotion to junior/ward staff; obtaining inpatient details; repeated requests to see chief pharmacist; entering clinical areas uninvited; attempts to see medicines management pharmacist) because accounts differed and/or insufficient evidence.

🔒

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value

£249/year

Annual — save £99

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access