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

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2189/12/08
Complainant	General Practitioner (senior partner in a two-handed GP practice)
Company	ProStrakan Group plc
Product mentioned	Adcal-D₃ (calcium and vitamin D₃ supplement)
Activity	Calcium and vitamin D service / therapy review programme delivered by an agency pharmacist
Main allegations	Service not properly authorised; patient list given to company to write to patients; service led to prescribing of company product
Clauses considered	Clauses 2, 9.1 and 18.1
Panel decision	No breach of Clauses 2, 9.1 and 18.1
Complaint received	4 December 2008
Case completed	12 February 2009
Appeal	No appeal
Applicable Code year	2008

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 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.

⚖️

⌄

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.

🔒

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