Shire: agency outreach to NHS consultant lacked clear disclosure of company role (AUTH/2745/1/15)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2745/1/15
Complainant	Chief pharmacist/director of pharmacy services at an NHS foundation trust
Company	Shire Pharmaceuticals Limited
Issue	Transparency of Shire’s role when an agency approached an HCP to contribute to an ADHD transition services module for an ADHD Service toolkit
Material/context	Agency invitation email and subsequent telephone call regarding consultancy input; “ADHD Service toolkit” update (Transition Service update)
Complaint received	09 January 2015
Case completed	13 March 2015
Applicable Code	2014
Breach clauses	Clause 9.1, Clause 9.2
No breach clauses	Clause 2, Clause 9.10, Clause 12.1, Clause 18.5
Appeal	No appeal
Sanction	Undertaking received

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

📋

⌄

A chief pharmacist/director of pharmacy services at an NHS foundation trust complained about how a communications agency (working for Shire) approached a consultant about her ADHD transition service work.
The agency email invited the consultant to “share your example of good local practice in ADHD Transition Services” and said “We are collecting examples…”, without stating who “We” was.
The email said the initiative had “been supported by funding from Shire Pharmaceuticals” and that the consultant would be reimbursed for time.
The consultant felt Shire’s role (initiation/funding/control/intended use) was not clear at the outset and only became clear later (during a telephone call), at which point she declined further involvement.
Shire said the activity related to developing an additional module for its existing “ADHD Service toolkit” (described as a non-promotional “service to medicine” tool used by Shire’s healthcare development managers).
The Panel was concerned that, contrary to Shire’s instructions to the agency, it appeared the consultant was not sent a Shire contract upon a positive response to the initial invitation.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards not maintained) due to unclear description of Shire’s role in the initial third-party invitation.
Breach of Clause 9.2 (failure to recognise the professional standing of the health professional) because the lack of clarity prevented a fully informed decision about accepting the consultancy invitation.
No breach of Clause 9.10 (Panel considered it did not apply to the complaint as framed).
No breach of Clause 12.1 (Panel considered disguised promotion did not apply given the non-promotional nature asserted and the nature of the complaint).
No breach of Clause 18.5 (not joint working as defined).
No breach of Clause 2 (not considered sufficiently serious for particular censure).
No appeal.

🔒

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