AstraZeneca sales manager’s personal Instagram post about KOL nurse ruled in scope and unethical; conflict of interest not declared (AUTH/3180/4/19)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3180/4/19
Parties	Respiratory nurse v AstraZeneca UK Limited
Issue	Material on a personal social media account (Facebook/Instagram posts by a sales manager referencing a nurse KOL)
Applicable Code year	2016
Complaint received	04 April 2019
Case completed	29 October 2019
Appeal	No appeal
Clauses considered	Clauses 9.1 and 15.2
Breach findings	Clause 15.2 (Instagram post about nurse A as friend and KOL); Clause 9.1 (undeclared potential/perceived conflict of interest)
No breach findings	Clause 15.2 (party posts not evidenced); Clause 9.1 (no evidence of inducement/inappropriate consultancy or biased speaking)
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated
Source	https://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/completed-cases/auth3180419-respiratory-nurse-v-astrazeneca

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 respiratory nurse complained about Facebook/Instagram posts made from an AstraZeneca UK sales manager’s personal social media accounts.
The posts referred to a named nurse (nurse A), described as a respiratory “influencer”, educational nurse lead and national key opinion leader (KOL).
Allegations included: posts about a party (tagging, photos) and a February 2019 Instagram post praising nurse A and describing them as a KOL in respiratory, diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
Nurse A was engaged by AstraZeneca for cross-portfolio promotional and non-promotional activities and also as a consultant; the sales manager had played a role in raising/approving some consultancy/speaker contracts.
The sales manager’s accounts were set to “private”, but followers/members included health professionals (including nurse A).
The complainant did not provide screenshots of the alleged party posts (they were shown the posts by a colleague).
The sales manager had submitted annual conflict of interest declarations since Dec 2017 and did not declare the personal relationship, believing (based on prior discussion with their line manager) it was not necessary.

⚖️

⌄

Clause 15.2 (high standards): Breach in relation to the February 2019 Instagram post describing nurse A as a friend and a KOL in therapy areas where AstraZeneca had a commercial interest.
Clause 15.2: No breach in relation to the alleged party posts (insufficient evidence provided; posts not supplied to the Panel).
Clause 9.1: No breach regarding allegations that consultancy arrangements were an inducement or that nurse A was biased (no evidence provided to establish this).
Clause 9.1: Breach due to the undeclared (and perceived) conflict of interest arising from the personal relationship where the sales manager could raise/approve service agreements with nurse A.
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