AUTH/1963/2/07: Independent nurse advisor v GlaxoSmithKline (Diabetes Patient Review Service) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/1963/2/07
Complainant	Independent nurse advisor
Company	GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd
Service/Activity	Diabetes Patient Review Service (DPRS) / clinic support at a medical centre
Main allegation	Representative installed software and selected/invited patients, allegedly breaching patient confidentiality
Company position	Individual was a non-promotional DFA; reports were anonymised with unique IDs; practice held the identifying spreadsheet; practice set criteria and decided attendees; letters produced by practice administrator; DFA supervised and did not access identifiable data
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 18.1, 18.4
Panel decision	No breach of Clauses 18.1, 18.4, 9.1; therefore no breach of Clause 2
Complaint received	19 February 2007
Case completed	20 April 2007
Applicable Code year	2006
Appeal	No appeal

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 complainant alleged a GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) representative installed software (“downloaded a disc”) onto a GP practice system and, with the practice nurse’s knowledge, chose which patients should attend a GSK-provided clinic and invited them.
The complainant believed this amounted to a breach of patient confidentiality and wanted to prevent recurrence.
GSK stated the individual was a Diabetes First Associate (DFA) in a non-promotional role delivering the Diabetes Patient Review Service (DPRS), a free, non-promotional service offered unconditionally and not linked to any medicine.
The service involved installing third-party software to generate anonymised audit reports and (optionally) using independent agency nurse advisors to review patients if the practice requested.
GSK stated patient lists were generated using unique ID numbers only; the identifying key/spreadsheet was held by the practice and not accessible to the DFA. The practice set the search criteria and decided who attended; the practice administrator produced letters.
The DFA installed/demonstrated the software under supervision of the practice nurse and did not unmask patient names (a tick-box existed but was not clicked).

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was found.
The Panel did not consider there was sufficient evidence, on the balance of probabilities, that patient confidentiality had been breached, because the DFA did not have access to identifiable patient data.
No breach of Clauses 18.1, 18.4 and 9.1; therefore no breach of Clause 2.

🔒

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