AUTH/3332/4/20 - Anonymous v Sobi

Email sent by a medical science liaison (MSL)

  • Received
    18 April 2020
  • Case number
    AUTH/3332/4/20
  • Applicable Code year
    2019
  • Completed
    26 November 2020
  • No breach Clause(s)
  • Additional sanctions
  • Appeal
    No appeal

Case Summary

An anonymous, non-contactable individual alleged, on behalf of a hospital haematology team, that an unsolicited email sent to his/her NHS email address by a named employee of Swedish Orphan Biovitrum Ltd (Sobi) was inappropriate. The complainant believed the email was sent to gain an interaction/meeting at a time that was not appropriate given the workload health professionals were currently working under addressing the response to COVID-19. The complainant did not know the Sobi employee and so was surprised to receive the email.

The complainant considered that the person who sent the email had acted in poor judgement and thus placed a burden on the haematology team. The complainant stated that if he/she required information or data from Sobi he/she would contact the medical information department and request it. The complainant noted that patients were currently asked only to visit the hospital department in an emergency, so there were many emails from them to deal with; the team did not need additional unrequested emails from pharmaceutical companies trying to offer their services. The complainant believed by just sending the email the representative had promoted his/her product and services at a time when the team had made it clear that such was not welcomed.

The detailed response from Sobi is given below. Sobi confirmed that the named employee was a medical science liaison (MSL) and provided redacted copies of relevant emails.

The Panel noted that the complainant had not provided a copy of the email that he/she received. The Panel also noted that the complainant had referred to emails promoting products/services being unwelcome but had provided no details as to how such a view had been communicated to pharmaceutical companies.

The Panel noted that a Sobi medical department communication to Sobi staff (12 March 2020) listed several hospitals that had started to limit on-site access due to COVID-19 and advised staff to respect those restrictions and to contact health professionals ahead of time to confirm if planned face-to-face activities within those trusts could still go ahead.

The Panel noted that Sobi briefed medical staff on 26 March with a suggested template for a Sobi medical contact email to be sent to their assigned health professionals. The intent was to show professional support and care, so health professionals did not feel suddenly abandoned. Staff were advised to adapt the communication as appropriate eg if they already had a relationship with the health professional then they should specifically reference it in the email. Staff were reminded to ensure that their communication was permitted (ie the recipients were on the customer relation management (CRM) system), and that the message overall was short, professional, respectful, accurate and non-promotional. The email recommended that medical staff contact everyone they had seen/engaged with in the past 6 months and also those health professionals at sites where interaction was planned/expected in the next three months.

The Panel noted that although the redacted copies of the emails sent by the MSL differed slightly to account for personal circumstances from the template suggested by Sobi, they did not differ in substance. Before stating his/her name, the MSL had stated ‘Hopefully we can meet in the future’.

The Panel noted its comments above and did not consider that the email briefing with the suggested email template advocated any course of action which would be likely to lead to a breach of the Code. Staff were given guidance on adapting the template, when to send the ‘Making contact’ email, who to send it to and to ensure that the message overall was short, professional and non-promotional. The Panel therefore ruled no breach of the Code.

The Panel noted that the complainant had not provided evidence that the email he/she had received was inappropriate. The redacted copies of the emails sent by the MSL and provided by Sobi had closely mirrored the suggested template and did not differ in substance. Although the emails referred to a hope of meeting in the future, the Panel did not consider that the emails placed a burden on recipients as alleged. There was no reference to products as implied by the complainant. The complainant had not provided any evidence to show that the MSL should have known that, at the time, the hospital team did not welcome such emails. Overall, the Panel did not consider that it had evidence before it to suggest that, in sending the emails, the MSL had not maintained a high standard of ethical conduct; no breach of the Code was ruled.

The Panel noted its comments and rulings above and considered that high standards had been maintained; no breaches of the Code were ruled including of Clause 2.