Anonymous v GlaxoSmithKline: POINTS COPD audit service (AUTH/2178/10/08) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2178/10/08
Complainant	Anonymous and non-contactable
Company	GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd
Service / activity	Patient outcomes and information service (POINTS) – software-based COPD audit tool
Therapy area	COPD
Key allegations	Complex authorisation form; PCTs “banned” it; potential monitoring tool for Seretide reps; concern reps could see data; alleged withdrawal of other support after refusal
Applicable Code year	2006
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 18.1, 18.4
Panel decision	No breach of the Code
Complaint received	21 October 2008
Case completed	9 December 2008
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

📋

⌄

An anonymous, non-contactable complainant queried whether GlaxoSmithKline’s patient outcomes and information service (POINTS) complied with the ABPI Code.
Concerns included: a complex authorisation form (whether users understood what they were signing and whether it needed signing for each report), claims that some PCTs had “banned” the service, and suspicion it was a monitoring tool for local Seretide representatives.
The complainant alleged the service had been offered by a Seretide representative (previously a nurse had offered it) and questioned whether Seretide representatives could see practice data.
The complainant also alleged that after refusing POINTS, other GSK support disappeared (spirometry training and staff training to run reports).
GSK explained POINTS was a software-based COPD audit tool, sponsored by GSK, delivered by non-promotional Respiratory Care Associates (RCAs), with a third party installing software and analysing data to produce practice-specific reports.
GSK stated no patient-identifiable data were shared; identifiable information remained on practice systems. As of 1 September 2008, a new contract/authorisation form was produced for each report generated.
GSK stated some PCTs/practices could not use POINTS due to software incompatibility or local IT policies restricting third-party software installation, not because of the service itself.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel found no evidence POINTS was a monitoring tool for Seretide representatives or that Seretide representatives saw the data.
The Panel considered promotional and non-promotional roles appeared clearly separated, and that POINTS and other services were not contingent on uptake.
The Panel accepted that some PCT refusals related to IT/software constraints rather than objections to the service.
The Panel noted the complainant provided no evidence that refusing POINTS led to withdrawal of other GSK support, and anonymity prevented further investigation.

🔒

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