AUTH/2025/7/07: GP Registrar v Napp – BuTrans promotion in a care home and audience mismatch | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2025/7/07
Parties	GP Registrar v Napp Pharmaceuticals Limited
Product	BuTrans (buprenorphine transdermal patches)
Issue	Promotion in a care home; leavepiece not tailored to non-medical staff who administer medicines
Setting	Care home for the elderly (Scotland)
Material referenced	Leavepiece ref UK/BU-06081; business card left with duty manager
Complaint received	23 July 2007
Case completed	7 September 2007
Applicable Code year	2006
Breach clauses	9.1 and 15.2
No breach clauses	2, 20.1, 20.3
Sanction	Undertaking received
Appeal	No appeal
Published	November Review 2007

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 GP complained after the duty manager of an old people’s home/care home asked her to prescribe BuTrans (buprenorphine transdermal patches).
The GP alleged a Napp representative had visited the home multiple times to promote a prescription only medicine and left promotional leaflets and a business card with the duty manager.
Napp said the representative visited five times since Feb 2007; some visits were solicited; one unsolicited visit did not result in a completed call.
The representative gave information and later presented to a group of staff in a staff room out of patients’ earshot, demonstrated a placebo patch, and left leavepieces (ref UK/BU-06081).
The establishment was a care home staffed largely by social care workers/assistants; the “Nurse in Charge” was not a qualified nurse (social work qualification) but was held out as such.
The complainant cited that BuTrans was not on the local formulary and not recommended by the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC).

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 20.1 (the staff were not considered “the public” in this context; they could be appropriate administrative staff and/or fall within the Code’s definition of health professional because they administered medicines).
No breach of Clause 20.3 (the care home was not a patient organisation/advocacy group as referred to in the Code).
No breach of Clause 2 (despite concern, the Panel decided the conduct was not such as to bring discredit upon or reduce confidence in the industry; prescribing decisions remained with the prescriber).
Breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards not maintained).
Breach of Clause 15.2 (conduct of representative).

🔒

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