Tillotts representative visit to GP practice: pharmacist’s wishes not observed (AUTH/3681/8/22)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3681/8/22
Parties	Complainant v Tillotts
Issue	Conduct of a representative; wishes of pharmacist not observed; inconvenience caused during an unplanned GP practice call
Product mentioned	Octasa (mesalazine); competitor referenced: Asacol (out of stock)
Setting	GP practice (Isle of Wight); interaction via receptionist and practice pharmacist
Complaint received	10 August 2022
Case completed	24 July 2023
Applicable Code year	2021
Breach clauses	17.2, 17.4
No breach clauses	2, 5.1, 17.5
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions applied	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated

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

📋

⌄

An integrated care board (ICB) staff member raised concerns after receiving a complaint from a pharmacist at a local GP practice about a Tillotts representative promoting Octasa (mesalazine).
The pharmacist alleged the representative initially claimed to be from a named hospital and said they were visiting about an Asacol shortage, and that they were communicating a message “on behalf of” a named CCG about using Octasa instead of Asacol.
Tillotts said the visit to the GP practice (Isle of Wight, August 2022) was unplanned; the representative used spare time after a planned hospital meeting to visit nearby practices.
According to the representative, they told the receptionist they were from Tillotts Pharma (not a patient) and asked to see the practice pharmacist; the interaction lasted less than a minute.
The pharmacist stated they believed the representative was from a named hospital and said they did not see representatives; the representative tried again to explain why they were there before apologising and leaving.
Tillotts investigated internally, apologised for any inconvenience, and proposed refresher training (clear introductions; reiterating that appointments should always be made and unplanned calls discouraged).

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 17.4.
Breach of Clause 17.2.
No breach of Clause 17.5.
No breach of Clause 5.1 (Panel considered an additional breach would be disproportionate in the circumstances).
No breach of Clause 2 (Panel did not consider a ruling warranted).
No appeal.

📖

⌄

Breach of Clause 17.2 Representatives failing to maintain a high standard of ethical conduct in the discharge of their duties and failing to comply with all relevant requirements of the Code
Breach of Clause 17.4 Failing to observe the wishes of individuals on whom representatives call and the arrangements in force at a particular establishment
No Breach of Clause 2 Requirement that activities or materials must not bring discredit upon, or reduce confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry
No Breach of Clause 5.1 Requirement to maintain high standards
No Breach of Clause 17.5 Requirement that representatives must not mislead as to their identity or that of the company they represent.

🔒

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