You may be trying to access this site from a secured browser on the server. Please enable scripts and reload this page.
Turn on more accessible mode
Turn off more accessible mode
Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Turn off Animations
Turn on Animations
Skip to main navigation
Skip to main content
Turn on more accessible mode
Turn off more accessible mode
Sign In
This site uses cookies to help us give you the best experience on our website. To find out more about the cookies we use, read our
Terms and Conditions
Hide This
Search
Advanced Search
Sign up to e-alerts
Home
Currently selected
About us
Who we are and what we do
The Code
Interactive Code 2016
Interactive Code 2015
Interactive Code 2014
Advice
Appeal Procedures
Supply of emollients for patients to try
Third party service providers, ABPI membership and the Code
Cases
Ongoing cases
Completed cases
Code of Practice Reviews
Corrective statements
Advertisements and public reprimands
Media
News archive
Training
Results
Currently selected
Advanced Search
Sign up to e-alerts
Search
Home
Currently selected
About us
The Code
Advice
Cases
Media
Training
Contact Us
Site Map
Sign up to e-alerts
PMCPA
>
Results
Results
Currently selected
Restrict your results by using the refiners below:
It looks like your browser does not have JavaScript enabled. Please turn on JavaScript and try again.
Page Content
Narrow Your Results:
Advice Notes
Case Reviews 1999 to May 2006
Case File PDFs (Post May 2006)
Case Summaries (Post May 2006)
It looks like your browser does not have JavaScript enabled. Please turn on JavaScript and try again.
AUTH/2793/9/15 - Clinical pharmacist v AstraZeneca
3454
01/07/2016 09:33:24
Click here to suggest your own
clinical
pharmacist
complained about an AstraZeneca leavepiece about how to create a
clinical
system search to identify patients suitable for
STS_ListItem_PublishingPages
http://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx
0
http://www.pmcpa.org.uk
01/07/2016 09:33:24
html
False
aspx
16
16
~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_WebPage.js
AUTH/2584/3/13 - Pharmacist v Almirall
3274
06/06/2014 14:17:31
A
clinical
pharmacist
complained about a meeting invitation from Almirall
The
complainant
also noted that educational goods and services must not bear the name of a
STS_ListItem_PublishingPages
http://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx
0
http://www.pmcpa.org.uk
06/06/2014 14:17:31
html
False
aspx
16
16
~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_WebPage.js
AUTH/2305/3/10 - Clinical Pharmacist v Pfizer
3042
06/06/2014 14:16:23
A
clinical
pharmacist
complained that a website produced and sponsored by Wyeth, contained
The
complainant
alleged that Wyeth had misrepresented the data and the website needed
STS_ListItem_PublishingPages
http://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx
0
http://www.pmcpa.org.uk
06/06/2014 14:16:23
html
False
aspx
16
16
~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_WebPage.js
AUTH/2525/7/12 - Clinical Lead Pharmacist v ProStrakan
3231
06/06/2014 14:17:27
Case number:AUTH/2525/7/12 Case ref:
Clinical
Lead
Pharmacist
v ProStrakan Description:Conduct of
At this point the
complainant
became aware of the meeting
STS_ListItem_PublishingPages
http://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx
0
http://www.pmcpa.org.uk
06/06/2014 14:17:27
html
False
aspx
16
16
~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_WebPage.js
AUTH/2158/8/08 - Pharmacist v Sanofi-Aventis
2910
06/06/2014 14:15:37
The card offered copies of four rimonabant
clinical
studies and also some other items that
noted that Sanofi-Aventis had not received the
complainant’s
reply paid card and that the
STS_ListItem_PublishingPages
http://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx
0
http://www.pmcpa.org.uk
06/06/2014 14:15:37
html
False
aspx
16
16
~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_WebPage.js
AUTH/1884/8/06 - Hospital Chief Pharmacist v Servier
2701
06/06/2014 14:14:37
repeated requests to seek an appointment with the
complainant
, when the representative was told that the
complainant
did not see company representatives; entering
clinical
areas
STS_ListItem_PublishingPages
http://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx
0
http://www.pmcpa.org.uk
06/06/2014 14:14:37
html
False
aspx
16
16
~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_WebPage.js
AUTH/2158/8/08 - Pharmacist v Sanofi-Aventis
1325
20/02/2009 11:39:11
on a named basis to doctors at the
complainant’s
practice, with a general mailer to ‘the
pharmacist
’ on 10 July, by second class post
STS_ListItem_DocumentLibrary
http://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FDocuments%2F2008%2F2158%20Feb%202009%2Epdf&action=interactivepreview
http://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FDocuments%2F2008%2F2158%20Feb%202009%2Epdf&action=imagepreview
http://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Documents/2008
0
http://www.pmcpa.org.uk
20/02/2009 11:39:11
pdf
False
pdf
15
15
~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_PDF.js
AUTH/2923/12/16 - Hospital Pharmacist v Merck Sharp & Dohme
3570
11/12/2017 10:24:03
The
complainant
further alleged that the claim ‘17 years of
Clinical
Experience with over 2.4 Million Patients treated
This ruling was upheld on appeal by the
complainant
STS_ListItem_PublishingPages
http://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx
0
http://www.pmcpa.org.uk
11/12/2017 10:24:03
html
False
aspx
16
16
~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_WebPage.js
AUTH/2775/6/15 - Anonymous, non-contactable pharmacist v Boehringer Ingelheim
3436
08/12/2015 10:31:42
An anonymous, non-contactable
complainant
who described him/herself as a hospital
pharmacist
raised two concerns about a programme to
STS_ListItem_PublishingPages
http://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx
0
http://www.pmcpa.org.uk
08/12/2015 10:31:42
html
False
aspx
16
16
~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_WebPage.js
AUTH/2713/5/14 - Chief Pharmacist v Eli Lilly
3385
03/09/2014 15:50:26
nurse and not the intended interaction ie one speaking engagement at a
clinical
meeting
was no study proposed which was akin to a seeding study as postulated by the
complainant
STS_ListItem_PublishingPages
http://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx
0
http://www.pmcpa.org.uk
03/09/2014 15:50:26
html
False
aspx
16
16
~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_WebPage.js
Restrict your results by using the refiners below:
It looks like your browser does not have JavaScript enabled. Please turn on JavaScript and try again.
Related links
Advanced search
Page Content 2