Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation Skip to main content
Sign In
Advanced Search
Sign up to e-alerts
Advanced Search Sign up to e-alerts
Restrict your results by using the refiners below:
Search

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Narrow Your Results:​

 

 

AUTH/2793/9/15 - Clinical pharmacist v AstraZeneca 345401/07/2016 09:33:24Click 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_PublishingPageshttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx0http://www.pmcpa.org.uk01/07/2016 09:33:24htmlFalseaspx1616~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_WebPage.js
AUTH/2584/3/13 - Pharmacist v Almirall 327406/06/2014 14:17:31A 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_PublishingPageshttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx0http://www.pmcpa.org.uk06/06/2014 14:17:31htmlFalseaspx1616~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_WebPage.js
AUTH/2305/3/10 - Clinical Pharmacist v Pfizer304206/06/2014 14:16:23A 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_PublishingPageshttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx0http://www.pmcpa.org.uk06/06/2014 14:16:23htmlFalseaspx1616~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_WebPage.js
AUTH/2525/7/12 - Clinical Lead Pharmacist v ProStrakan 323106/06/2014 14:17:27Case 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_PublishingPageshttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx0http://www.pmcpa.org.uk06/06/2014 14:17:27htmlFalseaspx1616~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_WebPage.js
AUTH/2158/8/08 - Pharmacist v Sanofi-Aventis291006/06/2014 14:15:37The 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_PublishingPageshttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx0http://www.pmcpa.org.uk06/06/2014 14:15:37htmlFalseaspx1616~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_WebPage.js
AUTH/1884/8/06 - Hospital Chief Pharmacist v Servier270106/06/2014 14:14:37repeated 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_PublishingPageshttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx0http://www.pmcpa.org.uk06/06/2014 14:14:37htmlFalseaspx1616~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_WebPage.js
AUTH/2158/8/08 - Pharmacist v Sanofi-Aventis132520/02/2009 11:39:11on 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_DocumentLibraryhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FDocuments%2F2008%2F2158%20Feb%202009%2Epdf&action=interactivepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FDocuments%2F2008%2F2158%20Feb%202009%2Epdf&action=imagepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Documents/20080http://www.pmcpa.org.uk20/02/2009 11:39:11pdfFalsepdf1515~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_PDF.js
AUTH/2923/12/16 - Hospital Pharmacist v Merck Sharp & Dohme 357011/12/2017 10:24:03The 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_PublishingPageshttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx0http://www.pmcpa.org.uk11/12/2017 10:24:03htmlFalseaspx1616~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_WebPage.js
AUTH/2775/6/15 - Anonymous, non-contactable pharmacist v Boehringer Ingelheim 343608/12/2015 10:31:42An anonymous, non-contactable complainant who described him/herself as a hospital pharmacist raised two concerns about a programme to STS_ListItem_PublishingPageshttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx0http://www.pmcpa.org.uk08/12/2015 10:31:42htmlFalseaspx1616~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_WebPage.js
AUTH/2713/5/14 - Chief Pharmacist v Eli Lilly 338503/09/2014 15:50:26nurse 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_PublishingPageshttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx0http://www.pmcpa.org.uk03/09/2014 15:50:26htmlFalseaspx1616~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_WebPage.js

Restrict your results by using the refiners below:
Related links