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

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2178/10/08
Parties	Anonymous v GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd
Complaint received	21 October 2008
Case completed	09 December 2008
Applicable Code	2006
Subject	Patient outcomes and information service (POINTS) – COPD audit tool/service to medicine
Main allegations	Complex authorisation/consent; alleged PCT “ban”; suspected monitoring tool for Seretide reps; concern about data visibility; alleged withdrawal of other support after refusal
Panel decision	No breach of the Code
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 18.1 and 18.4
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	None stated (no breach)

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), reports of some PCTs having “banned” the service, and suspicion it was a monitoring tool for local Seretide representatives.
The complainant alleged uncertainty about whether local Seretide representatives could see practice data, noting the service had previously been offered by a Seretide representative (and earlier by a nurse).
The complainant also alleged that after refusing POINTS, other support “disappeared” (spirometry training and staff training to run reports).
GSK explained POINTS was a software-based COPD audit tool aligned to NICE COPD guidance, delivered by non-promotional Respiratory Care Associates (RCAs), with a third party installing software and producing practice-specific reports.
GSK stated no patient-identifiable data were shared; practices retained control; and POINTS was separate from prescribing and promotion of specific medicines.
GSK said some PCTs/practices could not use POINTS due to software incompatibility or local IT policies restricting third-party software, rather than a “ban” based on 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 uptake of POINTS was not linked to other GSK activities or support.
The Panel accepted that PCT refusals were due to IT/software issues or local policies, not the service per se.
The Panel noted the complainant provided no evidence that refusing POINTS led to withdrawal of other 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