Nurse v Schering-Plough (AUTH/2176/10/08): Infusion service programme and alleged confidentiality breach (No breach)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2176/10/08
Parties	Nurse v Schering-Plough
Issue	Alleged breach of confidentiality in connection with an infusion service facilitation (ISF) nurse advisor programme
Applicable Code year	2006
Clauses considered	2, 9.1 and 18.4
Complaint received	20 October 2008
Case completed	23 December 2008
Appeal	No appeal
Decision	No breach of the Code
Programme described	Infusion Service Facilitation (ISF) Programme to support secondary care physicians and improve NHS infusion services/patient journeys for intravenous biologic therapies (gastroenterology, rheumatology, dermatology)
Key evidence point	Panel found insufficient evidence that Schering-Plough required data identifying hospitals or patients to be supplied; reporting to Schering-Plough described as aggregated/anonymised

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 nurse complained about her suspension by a third-party service provider involved in an Infusion Service Facilitation (ISF) nurse advisor programme carried out 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 described the programme as nurses reviewing units and giving feedback on staff/equipment/processes to help improve patient and staff experience; she said only aggregated activity metrics were meant to be reported back (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 had seen evidence of such a report but did not have the documentation.
Schering-Plough said it engaged an independent third party to provide defined services; the programme aimed to improve NHS infusion services and patient experience, and documentation/contracting included confidentiality and data privacy controls (including an SOP stating no patient identifiable data would be collected).
The Panel noted a difference of opinion about the circumstances of the complainant’s termination of employment.

⚖️

⌄

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 that would identify hospitals or patients to be supplied.
The Panel ruled no breach of Clauses 2, 9.1 and 18.4 of the 2006 Code.

🔒

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