AUTH/2189/12/08: General Practitioner v ProStrakan — therapy review service (no breach)

📅 2008 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

Case numberAUTH/2189/12/08
ComplainantGeneral Practitioner (senior partner in a two-handed GP practice)
CompanyProStrakan Group plc
Product mentionedAdcal-D3 (calcium and vitamin D3 supplement)
ActivityCalcium and vitamin D service / therapy review programme delivered by an agency pharmacist
Main allegationsService not properly authorised; patient list given to company to write to patients; service led to prescribing of company product
Clauses consideredClauses 2, 9.1 and 18.1
Panel decisionNo breach of Clauses 2, 9.1 and 18.1
Complaint received4 December 2008
Case completed12 February 2009
AppealNo appeal
Applicable Code year2008

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
📋

What happened

  • A senior partner in a two-handed GP practice complained that his partner and a receptionist had authorised ProStrakan (via an agency) to run a calcium and vitamin D service/“survey”.
  • The complainant alleged ProStrakan was given a list of patients so it could write to them directly.
  • The complainant also alleged that whoever conducted the service “also wrote” (i.e., influenced prescribing of) Adcal-D3, a product promoted and made by ProStrakan.
  • Two practice authorisation forms/protocols were signed (6 May 2008 and 21 July 2008) by the complainant’s partner (as lead GP) and the practice manager; the complainant did not sign.
  • The service was delivered by an agency pharmacist; the protocol stated ProStrakan’s role was limited to reimbursing the service provider.
⚖️

Outcome

  • No breach of the Code was ruled.
  • The Panel found insufficient evidence that the service had not been authorised as required by the protocol.
  • The Panel found no evidence that ProStrakan received patient data and/or wrote to patients.
  • The Panel found it was not necessarily a breach for a company product to be prescribed following a compliant therapy review, where changes were agreed by the lead doctor.
🔒

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

⭐ Charter Member — Until 31 March

See the full compliance picture for every pharma company

291 Company Intelligence Reports — breach patterns, appeal history, industry ranking, PDF export. £1,999/year £2,499

Get Charter Access →

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

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

Subscribe Free