Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

NMC to be scrutinised over handling of Morecambe Bay


The nursing and midwifery regulator’s handling of witnesses and freedom of information requests are being put under the spotlight in an inquiry ordered by the health secretary.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council has been criticised for its handling of cases linked to the Morecambe Bay maternity care scandal, after it took almost eight years to reach decisions on cases.

“It’s vital to understand the reasons why the NMC got this so wrong”

James Titcombe

At least one case a baby died after mistakes by a midwife who continued practising years after complaints were raised about her conduct.

The Professional Standards Authority has been asked to carry out a review of the NMC’s actions by Jeremy Hunt after both itself and the Department of Health expressed concerns.

The review will be led by the PSA director of scrutiny and quality Mark Stobbs, according to Health Service Journal.

“It will look particularly at matters of patient protection, and the NMC’s communications with families”

PSA statement

Its terms of reference said it will review the handling by the NMC of complaints against midwives from University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust following events in 2008.

Factors will include the NMC’s approach to managing the complaints, the administration of the cases and relationship management with witnesses, registrants and other key stakeholders.

The review will identify lessons for regulators and make recommendations if necessary to change processes and approach.

The PSA said: “The review will not look at the substance of the NMC’s decisions or its panels’ decisions on the facts of individual cases and whether to proceed with them.

“It will look particularly at matters of patient protection, the NMC’s communications with families, including the NMC’s handling of recent subject access and freedom of information requests,” it said.

The health secretary ordered the new review following criticism of the NMC, which was accused of “lamentable failures” by Bill Kirkup, who led the original inquiry into poor care at Morecambe Bay.

The PSA described decisions by the NMC as “deficient” after two midwives were cleared of alleged misconduct linked one baby’s death. The fitness to practise panel was not presented with relevant evidence.

In addition, the regulator spent almost £240,000 employing a law firm to redact information after a routine Data Protection Act request from James Titcombe, whose son Joshua died as a result of failings at the Cumbrian trust in 2008.

The NMC has also so far chosen not to release a report that it commissioned examining its decisions over the fitness to practise of midwife Lindsey Biggs, who was involved in Joshua’s care but allowed to continue working.

She was sacked by the trust last year after another baby died. She was struck off after an NMC panel found her conduct fell well below expected standards.

Responding to the new review, Mr Titcombe said: “It’s clear to anyone aware of the events at Morecambe Bay that the NMC, over a considerable period, failed to fulfil its core purpose – to protect the public.

James titcombe

James titcombe

“If we are going to avoid similar events happening again, it’s vital to understand the reasons why the NMC got this so wrong and what needs to change in future to ensure professional regulation is fit for purpose,” he said.

“If the PSA get this right, I’m certain the findings and learning from this review will be far reaching and important,” he told Health Service Journal.

NMC chief executive and registrar Jackie Smith has previously acknowledged that the regulator took too long to deal with the cases after it delayed decisions while other investigations took place.

An NMC spokesman said: “We have worked closely with the PSA and the DH to agree the terms of reference for this review which is now underway.

“We are committed to working closely with the PSA to ensure that they have everything they need to carry out this review,” he said.

The review is expected to take six months, said Health Service Journal.


Readers' comments (2)

  • The NMC urgently requires to be taken out of the hands of dodgy investigation solicitors and equally dodgy prosecution barristers supported by an army of particularly dodgy willing apparatchik careerists. Some of the outrageous "contributions" of these "investigators" is truly breath-taking with already uncorroborated malicious post safeguarding complaint response allegations being "adjusted" to "fit" chosen prosecution "themes".... and much else! There needs to be a general request for such claims of prosecutor malpractices and a public inquiry and get RID of the current CEO incumbent and replace her with a competent, nay honest UKCC style nurse leader.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • My experience of the NMC from case workers to barristers to managers is complete indifference to serious patient abuse even where such abuse becomes absolutely proven during cases on the parts of malicious referrers. The institutional Asperger blinkers are simply set to another "successful" prosecution outcome and an attached obsession with required Dickensian "remorse" on the parts of the innocents declared 'guilty'.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.