Servier: hospital access training slides seen as encouraging “predatory” behaviour (AUTH/1906/10/06)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/1906/10/06
Parties	Paragraph 17/Director v Servier
Material	Training material (slide set on accessing hospital health professionals)
Complaint received	25 October 2006
Case completed	21 December 2006
Applicable Code year	2006
Breach clauses	Clause 2, Clause 9.1, Clause 15.9
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Advertisement
Published	February 2007 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

📋

⌄

During review of another case (AUTH/1889/8/06), the Panel saw a Servier slide set used to train representatives (NHS project co-ordinators) on how to access hospital health professionals.
The Panel opened a fresh complaint under Paragraph 17 (Director v Servier) because it was concerned the briefing material advocated behaviour likely to lead to Code breaches.
The slide set did not refer to the Code, and included prompts such as “Potentially access any grade of doctor!”, “Access Ward Nurses themselves”, and “Other sources of information… ANYONE!” (including security staff and cleaners).
It advised reps to “Try and establish if there is a protocol for representatives to follow” but did not make clear this must be done at the outset (before/on entering the hospital) or stress compliance.
Speaker notes included “Alternative access places” (eg coffee shops, hospital restaurants, library, laboratories), raising concerns about approaching HCPs without invitation and contrary to hospital policy.
Servier argued that Code training was delivered separately on the same course, that the “protocol” instruction was unambiguous, and that the slides were certified and intended as instruction not advice.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel ruled the training material advocated a course of action likely to lead to a breach of the Code: breach of Clause 15.9.
The Panel ruled high standards had not been maintained: breach of Clause 9.1.
The Panel ruled the material was likely to bring the industry into disrepute: breach of Clause 2.
The Panel stated the separate “Code training for ITP” presentation did not negate the misleading impression; each presentation had to stand alone for Code compliance.
No appeal.

🔒

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