Comments on the PMCPA Website
CompliMed's comments on how the PMCPA website could be improved, may be found below. We are happy for anyone to use these comments and add their own observations. All comments should be forwarded to Elly Button at the PMCPA ([email protected]).
1) Cannot reliably narrow down search to find cases against a company e.g. when you search for ‘Janssen’ and narrow results to “respondent”, results for Janssen appear three time, results for Janssen-Cilag appear twice and results for Janssen-Cilag & Napp also appear.
2) Cannot download results e.g. into a Word/Excel format – this would make the results much more searchable and allow filtering/sorting.
3) Search results are not always logically ordered (e.g. alphabetically or chronologically)
4) Advanced search function would be helpful to include ability to narrow down results by specific Clauses alleged/breached, sanctions such as audit, public reprimand, corrective statement or by specific year(s).
5) Cannot further narrow down results apart from only 4 options of Advice notes, case Review 1999 to May 2006, Case file PDFs (Post May 2006) or Case Summaries (Post May 2006) – it would be helpful to have an advanced search function similar to PubMed where you can further narrow down a search in stages; it would be helpful to include other sources of information, e.g. Media, under search categories.
6) Advice could be better grouped and described to allow for easy search e.g. “promotional stands” and “items at stands”.
7) Several items of advice could be classified under guidance (much like Digital Guidance) e.g. Meetings & Hospitality.
8) Results do not declare total number of results to be able to quickly ascertain volume of reading required.
9) Where links are broken (e.g. copies of public reprimands) it would be useful to have a “notify us” button so that this can be easily notified and therefore rectified.
10) Within the Media News Archive, it would be helpful to have a message to state that there were no news articles from 2006-2009 as currently, if you select these years, nothing except ‘Media releases can be found below’ which is misleading as there are none.
11) Cases are sometimes listed as Ongoing Cases when they are ‘Outwith the Scope of the Code’ – these should be located separately and only genuine ongoing cases that will eventually be published should be listed under ‘Ongoing Cases’.
12) Ongoing case email alerts - a reader has to click on the alert to go to the website to read very little information. This info could therefore be part of the alert itself
13) Case summaries are currently abridged versions of the case report minus the respondent’s response. It would be better to provide a tabulated summary which immediately conveys top-line particulars and breaches to then allow a user to choose whether to read the case report.
14) Conducting Google searches for cases using terms alongside “pmcpa” seems to provide better (more accurate, easier to identify the right case immediately) results from within published cases, than the PMCPA’s own search function.