ProStrakan: osteoporosis therapy review service alleged to be misrepresented as CCG-approved (AUTH/2708/4/14)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2708/4/14
Parties	NHS employee v ProStrakan Ltd
Issue	Alleged misleading implication that a third-party osteoporosis therapy review service was CCG-approved/continuation of prior PCT work; concerns about protocol inaccuracies and access to patient records
Product referenced	Adcal-D3 (calcium carbonate/colecalciferol) caplets and tablets
Applicable Code year	2012
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 15.2, 15.3, 18.1 and 18.4
PMCPA outcome	No breach of the Code
Complaint received	09 April 2014
Case completed	24 June 2014
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	None

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

⌄

An NHS employee complained about an osteoporosis therapy review service delivered in GP practices by a third party service provider on behalf of ProStrakan.
The allegation was that practices were misled into believing the service was approved/supported by the local clinical commissioning group (CCG) and was a continuation of a similar project run when the organisation was a primary care trust (PCT) (2007–2009).
The complainant said the newer review appeared different, including identifying patients who had not ordered calcium/vitamin D recently and switching them to non-formulary Adcal-D3 caplets.
The complainant said a protocol seen from one practice contained inaccuracies (eg references to a PCT, references to content not provided, and reference to Adcal-D3 caplets not on formulary) and would not have been supported by the CCG.
The complainant raised concerns that a company had deceptively gained entry to practices and access to patient records, describing this as an information governance breach bordering on fraud.
ProStrakan denied that it or the third party claimed CCG approval, stated reviews only occurred after detailed discussion and written consent from two authorised practice signatories, and stated outcomes/documentation belonged to the NHS and were not shared with ProStrakan.
The Panel noted the complainant was not party to the relevant conversations and that evidence was limited; the complainant could not locate an email declining the service and ProStrakan could not locate any such email or any evidence it had been informed of the CCG’s position.

⚖️

Outcome

⌄

The Panel ruled No breach of the Code.
The Panel did not consider it proven (on the balance of probabilities) that ProStrakan or the third party used subterfuge or suggested the service was supported by the local CCG to gain access to practices.
No breach was ruled for Clauses 15.3, 15.2, 9.1 and 2.
The Panel made no ruling under Clause 18 because it considered the complaint was about alleged misrepresentation of the CCG’s view, not the service itself; it noted a further complaint could be made if the complainant was concerned about the actual service provided.

🔒

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

Key facts

What happened

Outcome

Clauses considered

Unlock the full case analysis

AQP Flagship Path — the complete UK ABPI signatory programme

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown