The NHS faces financial risks and worries over organisational success due to the lack of female leaders on Clinical Commissioning Groups, a new report has warned.

Releasing Potential: Women doctors and clinical leadership found women had experienced difficulties joining CCG leadership committees despite evidence showing gender diverse boards improve financial performance.

GP Penny Newman, report author, says the lack of diversity presents “a risk to developing the collaborative and inclusive leadership behaviour needed for organisations to succeed in a complex system”.

The report, funded by the National Leadership Council, was based on in-depth interviews with 26 leading female GPs and consultants with the outcomes tested on a further National Leadership Council workshop which included 43 female medical leaders and other experts.

Several interviewees said they had signalled an intention to take a senior role within CCGs but had experienced issues in joining. Previously, claims had been made of a ‘jobs for boys’ culture from female GPs following a similar study by Pulse. One interviewee even described one leadership committee as consisting of “clubs, gangs and mafia”, insisting there was “exclusion, inequity and disengagement of the rest of the profession”.

Research from the report said that female GPs were more likely to work with marginalised and vulnerable communities and were found to have qualities such as empathy, being able to question and admit vulnerability and offering support and development to others.

“While the number of female doctors continues to rise, there remains an unacceptably small proportion in leadership positions within the NHS,” said Dr Newman.

“Female doctors represent a valuable resource to the health service, both in terms of the style of working and individual talent.

“The NHS needs to enable them to achieve leadership positions through more flexible working and other initiatives to maximise the potential of the workforce and ultimately provide a better service for patients.”

The report follows an investigation by HSJ which revealed that 85% of CCGs were led by men.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has agreed to pay $3 billion to settle US criminal and civil investigations into whether the company illegally marketed drugs and other matters.

The investigations include a Department of Justice review of the UK company’s controversial diabetes drug Avandia, which has been linked to heart risks.

The settlement follows clampdowns since the late 1990s in the US on unfair pharmaceutical industry practices that may have prioritised sales targets over payer and patient interests, such as marketing drugs for unapproved uses.

Andrew Witty, CEO of GSK, said: “This is a significant step toward resolving difficult, longstanding matters which do not reflect the company that we are today.

“In recent years, we have fundamentally changed our procedures for compliance, marketing and selling in the US to ensure that we operate with high standards of integrity.”

Mr Witty said that the company has put in place a new bonus system for US sales, which no longer focuses on individual sales goals, but is now based on selling competency, customer evaluations and overall performance of the sale representative’s business unit.

Federal prosecutors began investigating GSK in 2004, into whether the company promoted drugs for unapproved indications, and into cases where the company may have potentially influenced doctors.

The inquiry involved nine of the company’s best-selling products from 1997 to 2004, including lung therapy Advair.

Gbola Amusa, an analyst at UBS AG in London, said: “This news essentially draws a line under a 10-year legal saga.”

Both civil and criminal settlements are expected to be finalised in 2012.

Despite huge investments into CRM systems some pharma companies still struggle to get all of their staff to embrace and fully interact with them. Pf’s Iain Bate explores why, and what the future holds for technology in the industry.

There’s no doubt that technological developments have changed the way we live and work from year to year – maybe even from month to month in the 21st Century. But has the world of healthcare been travelling in the slow lane of the intergalactic highway?

The potential that technology offers to pharma, and the general world of healthcare, is enormous. But is the pharmaceutical industry, and its staff in particular, using it to maximise the returns of billion-dollar investments?

It would seem that technology is the ‘buzz word’ on the lips of a few of healthcare’s major players at present. The DH recently invited people to nominate their favourite health-related mobile phone ‘app’ – be it for keeping fit, to locate a hospital or chemist, or helping to manage an illness. Creative minds were also asked to design their own health app with a panel of DH judges deciding on their favourite from the most popular entries.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley says it’s the Government’s intention to give people better access to information using modern technology and the exercise is a “unique opportunity for the NHS and those who develop apps to not only showcase their work, but to bring to life new ideas and realise true innovation in healthcare”.

As part of the DH’s technology revolution, patients may also soon be offered online consultations with their GPs using programmes such as Skype. Clearly the Government is embracing the convenience technology offers to patients, but are other sectors in healthcare as interested? It would seem there is still some way to go.

 

In two minds

Pf ’s 2010/11 annual Company Perception, Motivation and Satisfaction Survey suggests that not all respondents are completely convinced by the power of technology in the workplace. Although the Survey – which relates to 2010 and the early part of this year – found that nearly 90% of respondents have access to a CRM system, only 43% find time to use it in the field and more than a fifth of people fail to accurately record post-call reports with important clients.

Questions have to be asked as to why, despite multimillion pound investment and training by pharma companies, there remains a percentage of staff that still ignore the power and potential of the technology at their finger tips.

Results from the Survey reveal there’s no difference in uptake by key account managers, primary and secondary care representatives, those in primary care roles only, firstline sales managers and secondline sales managers and the use of CRM technology between differing age groups – although surprisingly 10% of respondents in these positions with less than two years of experience said they did not have a CRM system, compared to just 5% more experienced colleagues.

The launch of the iPad in March 2010 promised to revolutionise the way sales representatives, and those in similar roles, use CRM systems in the field. However, nearly three-quarters (70%) of respondents from the Survey are still presently sent out with laptops containing their customer-relationship systems.

When quizzed on what they’d change about the hardware which houses their system, the majority of respondents said that their CRM was too awkward to carry, with poor running systems an issue and that batteries ran out too quickly. Apple claims its second-generation iPad now enjoys ten hours of use away from a plug socket in the field.

Yet the switch to the latest convenient tablet devices may not necessarily be about high levels of investment, it may be down to maximising value for money as Paul Shawah, Vice President, Multi Channel Strategy, Veeva Systems explains. “I would say the life cycle of devices within the industry is generally about three years, sometimes a little bit longer,” he said. “When a company invests in new technology they typically depreciate that over that period, so they don’t want to replace it in the field for that time to maximise their investment.

“However, with the introduction of game changing technology like the iPad, this has changed. We see a number of our pharmaceutical customers are justifying the business case to move to the iPad even before their tablets are fully depreciated. This speaks to the business benefit that pharma expects to achieve from the iPad and the related applications only available on that device.”

A convenient shield

Despite technology eliminating mundane process in the workplace and offering the potential to assist employees and improve their efficiency at work, it has historically been used as a shield to mask poor performance and abused as a means to waste company time – a recent online survey by AOL found that nearly half of Americans (44.7%) rank surfing the web as their primary activity during the two hours they ‘waste’ each day at work.

But it would seem that a high number of respondents do value the opportunities CRM offers. Almost two-thirds (64%) said they always enter correctly the amount of customer sales they make into their CRM. But 21% admitted they fail to always report face-to-face meetings with clients. More surprisingly, over a fifth of participants said they do not always record the number of products they had sold to clients.

The lack of honest accuracy is surprising considering the amount of time spent using CRM systems each day. A third said they spend between one and two hours a day on their system with a fifth spending three hours or more on their CRM. During their time using the management system, more than half (55%) said that call reporting was the most useful feature.

Although respondents were less impressed with the KAM abilities of their software with only 19% believing it to be the most useful facility. When questioned about what they would change given the chance, 45% said they wanted an improved database, over a quarter (28%) called for their system to be overall more useful, and 18% said they would prefer their CRM to be easier to use.

 

The next level

But what of the future of CRM systems? Will they be easier to use and have improved customer databases? David Round, General Manager, UK, Cegedim Relationship Management, says the regular interaction we now have with technology means we’ve all come to expect the latest developments.

“End users are significantly more ‘technology-savvy’ than their counterparts of even five years ago,” he explained. “If anything, the challenge for companies is to ensure that they provide their end users with the types of technology that they use as consumers. It’s also important to focus on the usability of your software to ensure maximum use. Technology companies – and pharma – must work together to develop a better understanding of the interaction, to ensure it meets users’ needs in the field.”

One main reason that users have become more ‘savvy’ is down to the use and interaction with social media. Whether at home or at work, websites such as Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and most recently Google+ have driven an increased use of various forms of technology – especially on devices such as smartphones or tablet devices which reps are calling for in the field.

Pharma companies, both in the US and UK, have flirted with the idea of fully embracing the power social media harnesses, but at present are restricted by the PMCPA’s Code of Practice and by the FDA – who has again delayed the publication of its guidance.

The FDA says it is “difficult to provide a timeframe... due to the extensive work and review process, or ‘Good Guidance Practices’, which ensures that FDA’s stakeholders are provided well vetted guidances articulating FDA’s current thinking on a topic”.

Although the FDA may be unsure on how to direct healthcare companies, David Round believes the introduction, both professionally and personally, of social media has had an impact on staff and their expectations.

“For the modern professional person, much of their everyday life is conducted online – for example on shopping, utilities, insurance or booking a holiday – and many users then want the same level of capability from the tools they use in their job,” he added.

Dan Goldsmith, General Manager, Veeva Europe, agrees there has been a significant shift in the way we operate and interact due to our experiences online through tagged posts or hash-tagged searches. But although the 800 million users on Facebook – more than half which ‘log-on’ every day – and 175 million people on Twitter have no problem saying hello to friends, pharma finds it more difficult reaching out to people.

“Social media create a new avenue for healthcare dialogue and will only continue to pervade our lives,” said Dan. “Consequently, I believe that pharma faces two challenges. The first is to decide how to participate in the online dialogue with stakeholders and then to create those interactions through the channels we’re all familiar with, such as Facebook and Twitter.

“The second is to figure out how to leverage the model of social dialogue internally to support stronger collaboration and more focused communication among employees. Already, we see some companies taking advantage of the latest social business tools to connect employees with one another and to access and share information in real time.”

Clearly CRM solution providers understand the potential modern technology and social media platforms offer to companies. Whether pharma and its workforce get fully up to speed on the intergalactic highway sooner or later remains to be seen.

Sales increased more than 10% at Sanofi in the third quarter to €8.7 billion, despite the loss of €471 million due to generic competition compared to the same period a year ago.

Total sales grew 10.1% along with an 11% increase in growth platforms after strong performances in its diabetes, vaccines and consumer health divisions.

Christopher A. Viehbacher, Sanofi CEO, says the return to growth in sales and earnings is an “important milestone as the company progressively puts the patent cliff behind it”.

Growth platforms and Genzyme accounted for 68.5% of total sales after the recently acquired business recorded sales up 6.9% to €768 million.

Pharmaceutical net sales were up a tenth to €6.9 billion and helped year-to-date net sales rise 5.5% to €20 billion, despite generic competition to Lovenox, Ambien CR and Taxotere in the US and Plavix (pictured) and Taxotere in the EU plus the impact of US healthcare reform and EU austerity measures.

Its diabetes division was driven by a strong US and Emerging Markets performance which resulted in a 12.4% increase in sales after Lantus recorded growth of 14.6% and 23.4%, in respective markets. Growth in Sanofi’s vaccine division also increased 16.7% after a solid demand for seasonal flu medication in the US.

The Sanofi Group now expects 2011 business net income to be between 2%-5% lower than last year’s total. “We continue to make strong progress in R&D with the submission of five new products and also in the tight control of our costs,” said Mr Viehbacher.

It was reported this week that Sanofi is set to overtake Pfizer as the world’s biggest pharmaceutical company by 2016.

Submissions have been recently filed for Lyxumia (lixisenatide) in the EU, Aubagio (teriflunomide) and Zaltrap (aflibercept) in the US; Visamerin/Mulsevo (semuloparin) in the US and EU; plus Kynamro (mipomersen) in the EU.

The company released its Q3 performance on the day it announced it was cutting jobs in its US R&D and sales divisions.

Sometimes, reporting on the UK pharmaceutical industry feels a bit like Bill Murray’s Groundhog Day. In the late 1990s, when I edited my first title for UK pharma, all the talk was of the move from GP Fundholding and the imminent introduction of Primary Care Groups.

By 2000, New Labour’s NHS Plan promised a revolution in healthcare built around delivering improvements in ‘partnership, performance, patient care and prevention’. The politicians were about to ‘modernise the health service’.

Fast forward almost 12 years and we’re still being read the same script; new politicians, the same old lines. Four Ps – partnership, prevention, productivity and patient care – continue to dominate airtime, only this time, of course, it will be different.

Different? Some hope. This is Groundhog Day. So how is the UK pharmaceutical industry responding to change? Its customer-base, meticulously redrawn through 10 years of implementing the NHS plan, is yet again being reshaped. PCTs are on the way out. CCGs and Clinical Senates are on the way in. Keeping track of decision-makers and influencers is critical. Getting in front of them in the right volume, at the right time and with the right message is life and death.

The industry is currently pinning its hopes on Key Account Management (KAM), supported by a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) philosophy that promises to enable the field force to have a more detailed understanding of individual customer needs across a diverse and complex landscape.

The tools to support the CRM approach are impressive, established and evolving in time with the modern technological advancement. They also provide huge value to medical sales professionals, and the ability to enhance customer interactions.

But, as ever, this is Groundhog Day. Twelve months ago, Pf’s annual survey into field force attitudes revealed an apathy amongst some sales professionals towards the use of CRM. A year later and it appears that, despite its many advantages, the value message for CRM is still not being heard by all of those who can undoubtedly benefit from it.

This year, 90% of Pf’s survey respondents have access to a CRM system – but only 43% of these find time to use it in the field, and more than a fifth admit that they fail to record post-call reports accurately.

In a fast-moving, dynamic marketplace, generating, sharing and maximising real customer insight is one of the best ways for sales professionals to achieve competitive advantage. CRM tools provide the perfect mechanism for this. Only the foolish would pass up the opportunity.

I feel like I am repeating myself. But then again, this is healthcare Groundhog Day. Next month: more NHS reform.

Chris Ross
Editor

Novartis will cut 2,000 manufacturing jobs in Switzerland and the US – despite seeing an increase in group net sales and operating income in Q3.

The positions will be cut by 2016 after the closure of two Swiss production sites and one in Italy, plus the restructuring and relocation of R&D activities from Switzerland to the US.

Joseph Jimenez, CEO of Novartis, said the job losses are needed for the Group to “continue delivering on our mission of bringing innovative new drugs to patients.”

However, the job losses will be offset by the creation of 700 new positions in low cost and other countries, the company said.

The Group recorded a sales increase of 12% in constant currencies to $14.8 billion and saw income also grow by 11% to $4.1bn.

Sales were boosted by a strong performance from recently launched products – which contributed 25% of net sales.

Pharmaceutical sales grew 9% after Afinitor (pictured)/Votubia was approved in the EU for two additional indications, the CHMP granted a positive opinion for Rasitrio for high blood pressure and the company’s breakthrough multiple sclerosis treatment, Gilenya, won approval in Japan.

“Once again, the breadth of our business and product portfolio allowed us to deliver strong financial results and operating leverage, as well as significantly advancing the pipeline in the quarter,” said Mr Jimenez. “To strengthen our future, we have accelerated actions to reduce our cost base over the next few years.”

The switch to Key Account Management is one more companies are introducing to tackle current challenges. Apodi’s Tony Swift highlights the principles of effective execution and making a strategy work for a smooth transition.

More and more companies are now addressing the changing healthcare market by transitioning the sales process from one which primarily involves representatives engaging with healthcare practitioners on a ‘one-to-one’ basis, to the establishment of Key Account Management (KAM) teams.

The rationale for this change is irrefutable. Access to GPs is increasingly difficult and the ‘customer’ now represents a series of more complex accounts with numerous stakeholders and influencers. Furthermore, decision making is both at a national and regional level and there is now a greater need than ever to focus on local healthcare economy needs and requirements.

As a result, pharmaceutical companies have established, or are in the process of doing so, KAM teams in which individuals have increasing responsibility and autonomy in addressing the needs of their customers at a local level. Some pharmaceutical companies have even taken the model further and given team members, or a small collection of them in a specific locality, P&L responsibility – essentially establishing micro business units within the team itself.

 

A different approach

Some years ago it could have been argued that any company transitioning to the KAM model was differentiating itself from the competition. This argument is much more difficult today because most pharmaceutical companies have moved, or are moving this way – in short, almost everybody’s doing it.

However, there is still a key source of competitive advantage in this environment – and that is to actually make the new model succeed.

Our research, and the feedback we have received from companies trying to adopt the new model, is that the execution process is much more difficult than originally anticipated. The type of feedback we receive often includes the following observations:

• Account managers do not appear to be acting in any materially different way than the sales representatives of the past
• They are adopting the new model at vastly different rates with a small number leading the way and the rest struggling to come to terms with the new strategy
• The move to more local autonomy is creating confusion about the role of the centre and its interaction with the decentralised function.

 

Difficulty of execution

So why is it that so many companies are finding the execution process more difficult than anticipated? The primary reason is that there is often an underestimation of the scale of the organisational change required.

For instance, many sales functions in pharmaceutical companies have historically been based on a traditional command and control structure. Here, the sales management instructed sales representatives on which HCPs to target, how many times they should be called on and exactly what to say during any meeting with them.

Within the new model however, many of these individuals are now faced with adapting to a new environment where decentralisation, decision making, autonomy and P&L accountability are now among the order of the day. Given the above, managements’ task of transitioning the organisation from the old to the new model requires considerable skill, focus and expertise.

 

A decentralised approach

Many management commentators argue that decentralisation is a panacea for all ills. If executed effectively, in an appropriate environment, this structure can deliver enormous benefits to an organisation. However, the move towards decentralisation often creates a number of serious problems which, if not addressed directly and quickly, will significantly impact on performance.

These problems are as follows:

A lack of expertise: a decentralised structure almost always requires an increase in expertise in the key roles within the structure. For example, increased knowledge will be required by employees AND management to solve problems, address more complex customers and, in effect, run businesses – particularly if P&L account responsibility is part of the role.

Inertia: many employees enjoy going to work in an environment where they understand exactly what the day will bring; the common challenges they always face and, in exceptional circumstances, being able to refer any unusual problems to their line manager. In a new environment where their decision making authority is increased, many employees will be reluctant to do things differently and may continue behaving much as before.

Lack of responsibility: the new environment is a scary prospect for some people. The last thing they want is more responsibility and a fear of failure and an inability to work in the new way paralyses them – again leading to ineffective execution.

At Apodi we have looked at specific pharmaceutical companies that are struggling with the implementation of KAM teams and researched the reasons for their difficulties. In every single example, one or more of the problems outlined above was prevalent – and in most cases all three problems coexisted together.

In fact, some of our own executives have reported their own first-hand experiences of working with companies in which the almost evangelical zeal and enthusiasm of top management continued unabated whilst chaos reigned and they failed to achieve an effective transition.

 

The way forward

As we have seen, the execution process can be difficult. And because of this, it is critical that a clear procedure for managing an effective transition is implemented. This process needs to address the following:

1. Identify clearly the strategic intent of the company, including the projected benefits of changing the model and how these are to be measured

2. Given the strategy noted above, clearly identify the role of the centre and the role of the decentralised units and how these might evolve over time. In our view, companies are often too ambitious in managing the transfer of responsibilities from the centre to the divisions or KAMs. Clear standard operating procedures need to be driven from the centre in the early stages and KAMs need to understand the rules that they are expected to work to. Think carefully about giving newly formed KAM teams P&L account responsibility. It may be better to transition to this over time, and in some cases, not even to go this far

3. Identify very clearly the roles and responsibilities of management and KAMs at all stages in the change process

4. Given the roles identified in the new structure, carefully recruit the appropriate personnel. Implement a training and development programme focussed on areas such as the role of Key Account Management, the implementation of a complex sale, general business disciplines and other skills

5. Management need to quickly identify any KAM team member who cannot make the leap to the new world of working and deal with this appropriately

6. Instil best practices across the whole KAM team by establishing effective coordination and information sharing processes

7. Establish effective incentives to drive the performance required

8. Put in place appropriate controls, feedback, learning and corrective action processes to improve performance. Key to this is the management team that drives KAM performance. This team needs to be highly experienced and knowledgeable about the requirements of KAM teams and how to manage a change process.

 

Leading the way

As ever, the role of the leader is absolutely critical in driving through the changes to address the needs of the new healthcare economy. Whilst the development of a sound strategy is critical, it is also the relatively easy part of the process. In every pharma magazine, nearly all consultants and most competitors will support the notion of moving towards a KAM driven business.

However, it is the effective execution of this transition that the leader should focus on. They will also invariably experience many of the challenges that are common to such change programmes, such as internal politics, resistance to the new way of operating, lack of appropriate skills within the team and so forth.

It is because of this that a leader needs to draw on commonsense business disciplines to be successful. It is also crucial that the immediate management team are able to do the same. Therefore, before embarking on the process, it is important to make sure that the management team is capable and ready to execute change.

As I noted at the beginning of this article, many companies are implementing similar strategies. It is therefore logical to assume that, everything else being equal, it is the company that has the management capabilities to execute these changes most effectively that will gain a competitive advantage over its competitors.

 

Tony Swift is the Managing Director of Apodi. He may be reached on tony.swift@apodi.co.uk.

The BMA has set out eleven areas of continuing concern with the Health and Social Care Bill.

The Association says that a series of further amendments to the Bill are necessary in “order to mitigate damage” to the NHS.

Its recommendations include giving Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) the freedom to commission the most appropriate services, and ensuring the Secretary of State retains ultimate responsibility for the NHS.

Dr Hamish Meldrum, BMA Chairman, says although the Association would prefer the Bill to be withdrawn, “there is scope for further significant change to be made” during its passage through the House of Lords.

In its latest briefing paper, the BMA also calls for an amendment which makes it explicit that patient choice will not be given priority over fair access for all. It also wants further safeguards which prevent providers of care or services ‘cherry-picking’ more profitable services.

On incentives for commissioning, the Association “continues to have serious concerns” about conflicts of interest with the link of financial incentives to the performance of CCGs.

Dr Meldrum hopes that peers in Lords will agree with the suggested amendments and change the controversial legislation before it progresses any further.

“Because so much of the detail won’t appear on the face of the Bill and will instead be left to secondary legislation and guidance, it is essential to have firm assurances now about the government’s implementation plans, for example, we continue to have serious concerns about the ethics of the current proposal to incentivise commissioners,” he said.

“Other areas where the BMA is seeking amendments relate to public health; the private patient income cap; the foundation trust failure regime; increasing bureaucracy and complexity, and information and confidentiality.”

Members of the BMA have previously expressed “major concerns” about the Health Bill on various occasions, calling for the Government to amend the plans back in June 2011.

Roche has posted solid sales performance in the first nine months of 2011 with overall group activity up 2% to 31.5bn Swiss francs.

Sales in the pharmaceutical division grew 1% after growth of key medicines and markets, particularly in the international region where a 6% increase was recorded.

Severin Schwan, Roche CEO, says the Group is “on track to achieve our targets for 2011” after recording results in line with expectations.

The Group confirmed it is expecting low single digit growth this year and is still targeting Core EPS growth of approximately 10% despite a challenging environment and global health reforms.

US pharmaceutical sales were up 1% and driven mainly by demand for Lucentis, Rituxan and Actemra. But the company suffered an expected negative impact in sales of Avastin (pictured) after the uncertainty around the metastatic breast cancer indication in the US.

Sales were down 4% in West Europe, primarily due to government austerity measures, and 2% in Japan after the affects of the earthquake in the country in March, the company said. Although an increasing demand for products in China (+28%), Venezuela (+88%) and Brazil (+16%) helped boost figures internationally.

In the same period, Roche also reported positive data from seven clinical studies, a number of which have already formed the basis for regulatory filings and approval in Q3; including the launch of skin cancer medication Zelboraf and companion diagnostic cobas BRAF Mutation Test following FDA approvals in August and Tarceva (pictured) in the EU for EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer.

“The successful US launch of our new melanoma medicine Zelboraf and the diagnostic cobas BRAF test has strengthened our leading position in personalised healthcare,” said Severin Schwan. “The good results we have achieved with new medicines in seven late-stage clinical trials so far this year further enhance our prospects for future growth.”

The countdown to the Pf Awards 2012 has officially begun. The most exciting awards ceremony for UK medical sales professionals has now launched and is open for entries for what promises to be yet another competitive and compelling occasion.

The Pf Awards are unique. Not only are they supported by the ABPI, but all candidates entered into the process are nominated by their company and not the customer. This ensures that only the industry’s top performers get to take part – guaranteeing competition of the highest possible standard.

The awards are now in their 12th year and continue to recognise high achievers within the industry. They have evolved and been developed over this period using feedback from the industry, judges and an independent advisory board.

As always, our purpose and vision is to deliver a cross-industry awards programme which rewards excellence in pharmaceutical sales in a variety of categories. With this in mind, three new categories have been added to the selection of accolades to be presented in 2012; Sales Team, Joint Working and Customer Recognition Awards.

In the coming months we will be taking a look at each of the categories and outlining key criteria for potential candidates. We begin by examining the Joint Working, Medical Representative and Account Team Awards.

Joint Working Award

The new Joint Working Award has been introduced to recognise where a working relationship with a customer has made a meaningful difference to patients, or patients’ services. There is no set length of service required to be nominated for this category, although compliance with the ABPI Code should be demonstrated. To be considered, there must be positive feedback or endorsement from a customer and both parties must have a vested interest in the joint working initiative. Candidates can be in either a field-based or office-based role. During the assessment, candidates are required to give a short presentation outlining their joint working venture.

Medical Representative Award

The New Medical Representative Award, which has been a longstanding category at the Pf Awards, has been renamed as the Medical Representative Award. Candidates should have up to five years experience in a primary care role within the industry at the point of entry. An ABPI examination pass is also required. Candidates will be asked to participate in a company product sales call, complete a written case study and also present a pre-prepared presentation.

The Pf Awards 2011 winner of the New Medical Representative Award was Claire Carr (pictured) of Astellas. The award was Claire’s first as a medical sales professional and although she found the process to be demanding, it was also something she relished and embraced. “The experience was a challenging one from the initial nomination all the way through to the application process and then assessment day and presentation,” she said. “It was a tough, but very enjoyable day.”

Account Team Award

Key Account Management is currently playing an important role in the sales and marketing strategies of most UK pharmaceutical companies. Consequently, the Account Team Award is arguably one of the most relevant categories. Candidates need to demonstrate working to a clearly defined account plan. Teams also need to have a clearly defined account management structure in place and must work across multiple disciplines within the account. They also need to implement a degree of autonomy to select practice accounts and stakeholders.

The Assessment Day will be held on Wednesday 14th March 2012 at the King Power Stadium, Leicester – formerly known as the Walkers Stadium. The Pf Awards Dinner takes place on Thursday 22nd March 2012 at the Lancaster London Hotel.

How can I enter?

If you or a colleague would like to know more about the Pf Awards, the categories, criteria, and how to enter, please visit www.pfawards.co.uk.