← Back to Cases
PMCPA Case

AUTH/2176/10/08: Nurse v Schering-Plough — alleged confidentiality breach in NHS infusion service programme (No breach)

📅 2008 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

⌄
Case numberAUTH/2176/10/08
ComplainantNurse
CompanySchering-Plough Ltd
IssueAlleged breach of confidentiality in connection with an infusion service facilitation (ISF) nurse advisor programme delivered by a service provider
Applicable Code year2006
Clauses considered2, 9.1 and 18.4
Complaint received20 October 2008
Case completed23 December 2008
AppealNo appeal
DecisionNo breach of the Code
SanctionsNone

Download the full case report (PDF)

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
📋

What happened

⌄
  • A nurse complained about her suspension by a third-party service provider delivering an Infusion Service Facilitation (ISF) nurse advisor programme on behalf of Schering-Plough.
  • The nurse alleged she was suspended because she refused to provide confidential information about her “customers” (NHS units) after confidentiality agreements had been signed, and that the information would be passed to Schering-Plough.
  • She said the programme involved reviewing units and leaving feedback on-site, with only limited activity metrics reported back to Schering-Plough (eg number of units attended, meetings held).
  • She alleged managers/directors at the service provider asked nurses to provide all spreadsheet information without unit consent so a report could be given to Schering-Plough; she said she saw evidence of such a report but did not have documentation.
  • Schering-Plough said it engaged an independent third party to provide defined services under the ISF Programme, designed to benefit the NHS and improve patient journeys for intravenous biologic therapies.
  • Schering-Plough described contractual and SOP controls: compliance with data privacy laws; no transfer of names/other personal data; SOP stating no patient identifiable data would be collected; and a Unit Agreement requiring confidentiality of hospital and patient identifiable data.
  • The service provider stated it had, on occasion, received hospital-identifiable data from nurse advisors, but this was not required, requested or encouraged; it said any hospital identifiers were removed before storage and none were disclosed to Schering-Plough.
⚖️

Outcome

⌄
  • No breach of the Code.
  • The Panel did not consider evidence had been provided to show, on the balance of probabilities, that Schering-Plough required data identifying hospitals or patients to be supplied.
  • No appeal.
🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

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

Best value
£249/year
Annual — save £99
or
£29/mo
Monthly
Join Now — Instant Access
← All Cases Book a Free Compliance Call

⭐ Business Intelligence Access

See the full compliance picture for every pharma company

291 Company Intelligence Reports — breach patterns, appeal history, industry ranking, PDF export.

Request Access →
⭐ Flagship Programme

AQP Flagship Path — the complete UK ABPI signatory programme

12 modules. 12 weeks. Final Signatory readiness. The industry standard for ABPI Code signatories — £995 + VAT.

Enrol — AQP Path Learn more

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

One real case. One key lesson. Every week — free.

Subscribe Free
🎓 AQP Training