AUTH/2702/3/14: General Practitioner v Pfizer — remote detailing access via call scheduling (no breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2702/3/14
Parties	General Practitioner v Pfizer
Issue	Alleged subterfuge/underhand methods to gain access for remote detailing; alleged urgency/pressure via reception
Channel	Telephone/remote detailing via online meeting room; appointment scheduled via third-party call scheduling company
Products mentioned	Lyrica (pregabalin) (scheduled topic); Eliquis (apixaban) (discussed on the day, per Pfizer submission)
Applicable Code year	2014
Clauses considered	9.1, 15.2, 15.3
Outcome	No breach of Clauses 9.1, 15.2 and 15.3
Complaint received	6 March 2014
Case completed	19 May 2014
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	None stated

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

🎬 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

📋

What happened

⌄

A general practitioner (GP) complained that a Pfizer representative used “underhand methods”/subterfuge to gain an interview by telephone (remote detailing).
The GP alleged the representative called the practice at least twice in one morning, told reception there was a pre-arranged 11am call, and pressed to be put through urgently while the GP was seeing patients.
The GP returned the call (thinking it might relate to prior clinical concerns about a medicine) and found it was a representative promoting a medicine for atrial fibrillation/stroke prevention.
The GP alleged the representative said the appointment had been made by a colleague; based on the receptionist’s report, the GP did not believe this.
Pfizer said a third-party call scheduling company had booked the appointment with a named receptionist, who suggested the date/time and indicated the GP could take the call after morning surgery and would have computer access for an online meeting room.
Pfizer said the representative called at the scheduled time, called again 15 minutes later at reception’s suggestion, then left details asking the GP to call back when convenient; Pfizer stated the representative did not say the call was urgent.
Pfizer provided scheduling call evidence/call notes; the scheduling company did not routinely record calls.
The Panel noted the call notes showed the appointment was arranged to discuss Lyrica, but on the day the representative chose to discuss Eliquis (different therapy area). The Panel said this was discourteous and could waste an HCP’s time, and asked that Pfizer be advised of its concerns (though it was not the subject of the complaint).

⚖️

Outcome

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
No breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards) and Clause 15.2 was ruled.
No breach of Clause 15.3 (no inducement/subterfuge to gain an interview) was ruled.
The Panel expressed concern (non-breach point) about booking a call for one product (Lyrica) but discussing another (Eliquis) on the day.

🔒

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

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access

AUTH/2702/3/14: General Practitioner v Pfizer — remote detailing access via call scheduling (no breach)

Key facts

What happened

Outcome

Clauses

Unlock the full case analysis

AQP Flagship Path — the complete UK ABPI signatory programme

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown