AUTH/2349/8/10: Anonymous practice nurses v Novo Nordisk (conduct of representative) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2349/8/10
Parties	Anonymous group of practice nurses v Novo Nordisk
Issue	Conduct of representative; alleged nuisance visits; alleged joint promotion/meeting attendance with devices company representative
Applicable Code year	2008
Complaint received	18 August 2010
Case completed	20 September 2010
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 15.2 and 15.4
Panel decision	No breach (insufficient evidence on balance of probabilities)
Appeal	No appeal
Additional sanctions	None
Product context (as stated by company)	Representative promoted Victoza (Jan–Jun 2010) and from July 2010 additionally promoted Novo Nordisk’s insulin portfolio; provided secondary care cover mid March–mid August 2010

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 group of practice nurses complained about the conduct of a Novo Nordisk representative and a representative from a devices company.
Allegations included: the Novo Nordisk representative “just walking into their rooms and ignoring receptionists”; visits being “less than informative”; requests to record visits as “works calls”; and follow-up marketing survey calls that made the nurses feel “put on the spot”.
The complainants also alleged the two representatives were visiting together to promote their different products, and that the Novo Nordisk representative attended daytime and evening hospital meetings run by the devices representative and discussed device features/quality control, with some staff allegedly unclear she did not work for the devices company.
Novo Nordisk stated the representative denied the allegations, but confirmed two pre-arranged joint lunchtime meetings in GP practices where each presented separately on their own products.
Novo Nordisk stated the representative provided secondary care “maintenance of relationship” cover for three hospitals while the usual representative was on sick leave, and that no joint meetings were organised at those hospitals.
The Director decided the complaint about the devices-company representative should not proceed because the representative promoted devices not covered by the Code.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel considered there was insufficient evidence to determine, on the balance of probabilities, that a breach had occurred (noting the complainants were anonymous and non-contactable and accounts differed).
The Panel noted it was not a breach per se for representatives from different companies to hold joint meetings and each promote their own products, provided arrangements comply with the 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